-IX J16S 4 SHIPS LIBRARY. U. S. S. PEORIA. Cornell University Library JX 4265.A43 Citizenship of the United States, expatr 3 1924 016 940 284 DATE DUE J^T" Try*** s GAYLOBD PRINTED IN U.S.A 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/cu31924016940284 59th Congress, / HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, j Document 2d Session. | ) No. 326. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, AND PROTECTION ABROAD. LETTER THE SECRETARY OF STATE, SUBMITTING REPORT ON THE SUBJECT OF CITIZENSHIP, EXPATRIATION, AND PROTECTION ABROAD. December 20, 1906. — Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and ordered to be printed. WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1906. g^^a 59th Congress, ) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. J c/miu^^ 2d Session. f j |Sf 326.^0- CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIA- TION, AND PROTECTION ABROAD. LETTER FROM THE SECRETAKY OF STATE, SUBMITTING REPORT ON THE SUBJECT OF CITIZENSHIP, EXPATRIATION, AND PROTECTION ABROAD. December 20, 1900. — Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed. Department or State, Washington, Decefnber_lE^1906. Sir: On the 1 3 th_o f_Apr.il, 1906, the Senate passed a joint resolu- tion providing for a commission to examine into the subjects of citizenship of the United States, expatriation, and protection abroad, and to make a report and recommendations thereon, to be transmitted to Congress for its consideration. The resolution carried an appro- priation of $10,000 for the expense of the commission. (S. Res. No. 30, 59th Congress, 1st session.) On the 6th of June, 1906, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, to which aforesaid joint resolution had been referred, reported to the House as follows : It is the opinion of the committee that legislation is required to settle some of the embarrassing questions that arise in reference to citizenship, expatria- tion, and the protection of American citizens abroad. The committee, however, is not convinced of the necessity of having a commission to consider these, questions or to prepare legislation for submission to Congress. Such commis- sions are sure to be leisurely, certain to be costly, and apt to be ineffective. It seems to the committee that the same end can be reached in a more practi- cal way. More information on these questions can be furnished by those who have been obliged to deal with them practically than by any commission of outsiders, however distinguished. We should be glad if the Secretary of State would select some of the gentlemen connected with the State Department who have given special attention to these subjects, have them prepare a report and propose legislation that could be considered by Congress at the next session. The result of such a commission we are confident would be of value. If there was any small expense for clerk hire, etc., in connection with its work, this could, as we understand, be defrayed, under the direction of the Secretary of State, from the general appropriations made by Congress. If a bill remedying such evils as may exist is submitted at the beginning of the next session it shall have the careful attention of this committee, and if its contents are ap- proved we will make every endeavor to have it promptly enacted into law. (Rept. No. 4784, 59th Cong., 1st sess.) Pursuant to this suggestion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Mr. James B. Scott, solicitor for the Department of State, Mr. David 2 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. Jayne Hill, minister of the United States to the Netherlands, and Mr. Gaillard Hunt, chief of the passport bureau, were directed to make the inquiry and report recommendations as appeared to be desired both by the Senate and by the HQUse_£ommittee. I transmit herewith the result of their labjjSs. I beg to commend it to the consideration of the" House as a very clear and thorough ex- position of this most important subject, upon which it seems to be generally agreed legislation is much needed. I have the honbr to be, sir, your obedient servant, . ' Elihu Root. Hon. Joseph G. Cannon, Speaker of the House of Representatives. Department op State, December 15, 190G. Hon. Robert Bacon, -" The Assistant Secretary of State. Sir : By an order^dated-July 3, 1906, the undersigned were consti- tuted a board to inquire into the laws and practice regarding citi- zenship, expatriation, and protection abroad, and to report recom- mendations for legislation to be laid before Congress, pursuant to the recommendation of the Committee on Foreign. Affairs of the House of Representatives contained in the report of the committee dated June 6, 1906. The conclusions which we have reached fall under the following heads : , ''First. Recommendations for constructive legislation. Second. Recommendations for declaratory legislation. Third. Recommendations for executive -regulations. As to the first point : We recommend (a) that a law be enacted authorizing the Secre- tary of State to issue, under such rules and regulations as the Presi- dent shall prescribe, certificates of nativity to natural-born American citizens temporarily resident abroad or who intend temporarily to reside abroad for legitimate purposes, setting forth the place of their origin, date of birth, and place of permanent residence in the United States. (b) That every male child being an American citizen resident abroad who desires to enjoy the protection of this Government be required upon reaching the age of 18 years to record at the most con- venient American consulate his intention to become a resident and remain a- citizen of the United States, and to take the oath of alle- giance upon attaining his majority. (c) That an American citizen residing continuously outside of the United States for more than one year be required to register at the most convenient United States consulate at least once each year his name and place of residence, date and place of birth, nationality of parents, occupation, and last place of residence in the United States, and to give solemn assurance of his continued allegiance to the United States and of his intention to return thereto. An entry of the names, ages, and place of birth of the wife and minor children should also be required. (d) That the Secretary of State be authorized, under such rules and regulations as the President shall prescribe, to extend the pro- tection of this Government and to issue qualified passports to those CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATEIATION, ETC. 3 who have made the declaration of intention to become citizens of tfye^ United States in accordance with the requirements of the act ap- proved June 29, 1906, and who go abroad for 1 briei sojourn, such protection and passports not to be effective in the country 'of the origin of the declarants and not to be granted to those who have re- sided in the United States for a period of less than three years. As to the second point : We recommend (a) the passage of an act declaring that expatri- ation of an AmericajLcitizen _may be assumed: First. AVhen Tie^obtelns naturalization in a foreign state. Second. When he engages - in the service of a foreign state and such service involves the taking of an oath of allegiance to such state. Third. When he becomes dme places (notably in the States of Illinois and Idaho) he may be i mployed upon public works and other aliens may not. Under the preemption and homestead laws of the United States he may preempt and acquire public lands (sees. 2259, 2289, Rev. Stat.). Not only may he be enlisted in the Army, but during the civil war he was compelled to perform military service as though he were a full citizen (act of March 3, 1863, 12 Stat. L., 731). Under section 2168, Revised Statutes, the widow and children of one who has made the declaration may, if he dies before he is actually naturalized, be considered as citizens " upon taking the oaths prescribed by law " — that is to say, the inchoate rights of the father are recognized as transmissible and the widow and children may 'secure full naturaliza- tion without themselves making the declaration. The sixth para- graph of section 4 of the act of June 29, 1906, has as its object the reenactment of this provision. The Supreme Court in the case of Boyd v. Thayer said on this point : Clearly minors acquire an inchoate status by the declaration of intention on the part of their parents. If they attain their majority before the parent com- pletes his naturalization, then they have an election to repudiate the status which they find impressed upon them, and determine that they will accept allegiance to some foreign potentate or power rather than hold fast to the citi- zenship which the act of the parent has initiated for them. (143 U. S., 178.) It is plain that those who have made the declaration are accorded privileges and perform duties from which other aliens are debarred. Nevertheless, the Government does not accord them protection if they proceed abroad. Their citizenship is in a formative stage, and in order that it may be completed it is necessary that they reside continuously in the United States for five years, the term continuous residence being understood in the legal sense, and not as being interrupted by brief absence from the United States. By an act approved March 3, 1813 (2 Stat. L., 811), no person could be admitted to citizenship who had not resided in the United States for five years, without being at any time out of its territory, but the latter part of this requirement was specifically repealed by the act of June 26, 1848 (9 Stat. L., 240) , and it is now beyond dispute that the continuous residence required by law does not make one who intends to apply for our citizenship a mere prisoner at large in the United States condemned to lose the benefit of his formally expressed intention and desire as a penalty for his stepping beyond our boundaries even for an instant. It is plain, however, that the Government does not owe protection to one who has declared his intention and goes abroad for a period of time long enough to destroy the continuousness of his residence. By this act his declaration would be nullified and as though it had not been made. It is equally true that he should not be protected if he should return to the country of his origin. As he has not yet accomplished expatriation from that country, it may of right CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 21 claim him as its citizen if he places himself within the jurisdiction of its laws, and this Government, not having yet invested him with its citizenship, can not justly dispute the claim. This principle should be of general application. It has been specifically recognized in our naturalization conventions with Austria, Germany, Wurttem- berg, and Sweden and Norway. The case of one who goes to a third country is different. Our practice now places him in the distressing attitude of having no government from which he can claim protection. Our laws have required him to declare that he intends to renounce allegiance to his parent government, and after he has done this the parent govern- ment can not be expected to extend him its protection, nor should he be encouraged to seek such protection. It may well be questioned whether if he did so it would not be considered as having vitiated his declaration of intention. As he has formally sworn that he in- tends permanently to reside in the United States and is actually domiciled in the United States, it is this Government to which he must look for that protection, which he should obtain nowhere else. Residents of the United States who have made the declaration and are required for good and sufficient reasons thereafter to make a trip abroad frequently apply to the Department of State for some docu- ment to protect them in their travels, and these requests are always denied. It is specifically forbidden by law to issue a passport to any- one who is not a citizen of the United States (act of August 18, 185G) or a loyal resident of our insular possessions (act of June 14, 1902), and a passport is the only document issued by this Government to protect one who is proceeding abroad and the only document gen- erally recognized by foreign governments as attesting the right of the holder to American protection. Under the law any alien may make the declaration of intention at any time before a clerk of a court having jurisdiction to naturalize aliens. He may make it immediately upon his arrival in the United States or he may have resided here for many years before making it. It follows that if this Government should protect those who make the declaration and go abroad it would be liable to be imposed upon by aliens not domiciled in the United States, who might make the declaration falsely soon after their arrival so as immediately to pro- ceed abroad under our protection. To guard against this imposition it would seem to be reasonable to require, as evidence that domicil in the United States has been really acquired, that the declarant who applies for our protection should be required to prove that he has resided in the United States for at least three years: and in order that the continuance of residence required by law before naturaliza- tion might not be disturbed, the passport which this Government might issue should be limited to a period not exceeding six months. Until recent years the practice was not uniform in the matter of protecting those who had made the declaration, and there are notable instances where such protection was extended. The rule in effect at one time is thus stated by Secretary Marcy in an instruction dated September 14, 1854 : The declaration, indeed, is prima facie evidence that the person making it was at its date domiciled in the United States, and entitled thereby, though not to all, to certain rights of a citizen, and to much more consideration when abroad than is due to one who has never been in our country ; but the declarant, not 22 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. being a citizen under our laws, even while domiciled here, can not enjoy nil the rights of citizenship either here or abroad. He is entitled to our care, ami In most circumstances we have a right to consider him as under our protection, and this Government is disposed and ready to grant hiiu all the benefits he can or ought to receive in such a situation. (Moore's Digest, III, p. 83!).) The rule now in effect was thus stated by Secretary Olney in 18!)6 : It is established by the practical interpretation and application of domestic statutes, and by various treaties of naturalization concluded with foreign states, that a mere declaration of intention to become a citizen can not clothe the declarant with any of the international rights of citizenship. (Van Dyne on Citizenship, p. 75.) The unsatisfactory status of the declarant was set forth by Presi- dent Cleveland in his annual message of 1885 : The rights which spring from domicile in the United States, especially when coupled with a declaration of intention to become a citizen, are worthy of defini- tion by statute. The stranger coming hither with intent to remain, establishing his residence in our midst, contributing to the general welfare, and by his v-oluu- ary act declaring his purpose to assume the responsibilities of citizenship, thereby gains an inchoate status which legislation may properly define. The feasibility of granting a temporary protection to a declarant finds an additional justification if we consider the matter of domicil. It is of course evident that mere residence, however long con- tinued, can not, in the absence of a statute, invest such resident with the rights and corresponding duties of citizenship; but it is not unreasonable that residence extended over a long period of time, by which the person and fortune of such resident becomes incorporated, as it were, into the population and resources of our country, gives to such an one a claim upon the good will and protection of the country, based upon the fact of residence. Indeed, it is not too much to say that the oath of the declarant may be taken as evidence of domicil, and that domicil depending upon actual residence with intent to continue such residence is there- fore shown conclusively by the oath of the declarant. Domicil, as such, can not, any more than mere residence, as such, confer the rights of citizenship, but permanent residence may well be considered as giving a person so domiciled greater claims upon the country of his residence than a person temporarily sojourning would be justified in claiming. Viewed in this light, the declarant is not only making evident an intent to become a citizen, but it is evidence of the most solemn kind of the establishment of a permanent domicil. If the subject be so considered, it will be seen that the attitude of Secretary Marcy, in the celebrated Kosta case, may be well supported and cited as an author- ity for protecting persons domiciled in this country who may tem- porarilv find themselves in a foreign country other than the land of their birth. III. EXPATRIATION. RECOMMENDATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS. Recommendations. The law asserting the right of expatriation (sec. 1999, Eev. Stat.) should be supplemented by an act declaring that expatriation of an American citizen may be assumed : First. When he obtains naturalization in a foreign state. Second. When he engages in the service of a foreign government and such service involves his taking an oath of allegiance to such government. Third. When he becomes domiciled in a foreign state, and such domicil may be assumed when he shall have resided in a foreign state for five years without intent. to return to the United States; but an American citizen residing in a foreign country may overcome the presumption of expatriation by competent evidence produced to a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States under such rules and regulations as the President shall prescribe. Fourth. Any person who shall have accomplished expatriation in the manner set forth in the preceding paragraphs shall, in order to reacquire American citizenship, be required to comply with the laws applicable to the naturalization of aliens. Fifth. The exercise of the right of an American citizen to expatri- ate himself shall only be permitted or recognized in time of peace. Observations. I AND II. The first and second clauses of the recommendations require little comment. Other countries, like our own, do not naturalize foreign- ers until they have foresworn all other allegiance, and an American citizen who foreswears allegiance to the United States has expatriated himself from the United States. He has done so with equal certainty when he takes an oath of allegiance to a foreign government in order to enter its service. It is true that because of conflicting laws on the subject of citizenship in different countries a child may be born to a double allegiance; but no man should be permitted deliberately to place himself in a posi- tion where his services may be claimed by more than one government and his allegiance be due to more than one. III. The third clause of the recommendation requires more extended notices In 1808 an effort was made in Congress to pass a bill providing that — '" — ---^('Wv.c^mJi fi^t i ( j all citizens shall be considered such no longer than while they actually reside within the United States; and that, also, if any citizen shall expatriate him- self ,. he-shall, ipso facto, be deemed an alien, and ever after be incapable, of becoming a citizen. 23 24 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. The bill went to the Committee of the Whole in the House of Rep- resentatives, but was never acted upon. (Franklin's Naturalization in the United States, 115, 11G.) In 18l7 the question was revived, and the following provision was reported to the House : That whensoever any citizen of the United States shall, by a declaration in writing, made arid executed in the district court of the United States, within the State where he resides, in open court to be by said court entered of record, declare that he relinquishes the character of a citizen, and shall depart out of the United States, such" person shall, from the time of his departure, be considered as having exercised his right of expatriation, and shall thenceforth be considered no citizen. He was to remain an alien until he should have gone through the usual process -of naturalization. (Franklin's Naturalization, 144.) This bill failed of passage and the subject was not seriously revived till 1868. The bill from which the act of July 27, 1868, was evolved, as pre- sented to the House January 29, 1868, by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, contained this as the third section: That if any naturalized citizen of the United States shall return to his native country with intent to resume his domicile therein ; or if any citizen sh aine_a y,e the United States with the intention of permanent residence in any foreign state; or shall fail to make annual return of his property in the United States for taxation to the assessor of internal revenue for the district of the United States in which said citizen last resided ; or shall engage as an army or navy belligerent in any foreign war or service, such citizen shall not be entitled to the interposition of the Government in his behalf under the pro- visions of this act. The fourth section provided that the termJidomicile," in_ the pre- ceding section, should be construed, to mean a continuous residence of more than five years in the native country of the naturalized citi- zen, or establishing himself in any business which denoted an inten- tion to resume a permanent residence. (Cong. Globe 71, pt. 1, 831.) The object sought was to deprive such a person of the interposition of the United States in his behalf without affecting his,,citizenship. A right of citizenship was to be in abeyance during his foreign domi- cile, and could be resumed when foreign domicile ceased,-- In the course of the debate Mr^Jegckes, of Rhode Island, offered the following: That any citizen of the United States may lose his national character, first, by becoming naturalized in any foreign country ; second, by undertaking with- out the permission of this Government the performance of public duties under a foreign government; third, by making his domicile in any foreign country without intent to return. But no residence for the purpose of commerce shall be considered as made without intent to return. Sec. 3. * * * but such protection shall not be accorded to the following class of persons, and the Executive shall not Interfere in their behalf after their quality shall have been ascertained : First. Those who have renounced their citizenship in either of the modes pre- scribed In the preceding section. Second. Those who may be guilty of any crime against the laws of any for- eign state, committed within its jurisdiction. Third. Those who, by treason or any other crime against the United States, shall have forefeited their rights as citizens of the United States. Fourth. Those who shall have been absent from the United States for more > than five years continuously, and who shall have failed to make return of their income and property for taxation and shall have paid no taxes in the district and State within the United States where they have each had their last domicile CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 25 during each year of such absence, in the manner required by the laws of the United States and of such State. ******* Seventh. Those naturalized citizens who shall return to the country of their 1'irth with intent to resume a domicile therein, which intent shall be presumed frornjive years' continuous residence in the native country of any such natural- ized citizen, or from therestablishnient of any business therein which requires his personal attention, and which denotes an intention of remaining a permanent resident. ******* Sec. 4. And Be it further enacted, That any citizen of the United States who shall have lost or renounced his citizenship in either of the modes hereinbefore set forth, may again become entitled to the same by resuming his permanent residence in any State or Territory thereof, and by making declaration of his intent to resume his citizenship in the clerk's office of any court of the United States. _(Cong. Globe 71, pt. 1, 908.) This sought to lay down a rule by which expatriation should be determined, to say what would be its effect, and how citizenship might be resumed, the proposed rules relating to expatriation being tajjen. fcom_the Roman law. As the debate progressed it threatened to become unduly prolonged, and the Foreign Affairs Committee brought in an amended bill which left out the clause relating to the right of protection, the chairman of the committee stating that it did not then press for consideration and might properly be postponed. The question immediately under con- sideration was that of the status abroad of American citizens who were not suspected of any intention of remaining there permanently. The Jaw as passed proclaimed the right of expatriation in the fol- lowing terms : Whereas 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 ; and whereas, in the recognition of this principle, this Government has freely received emigrants from all nations and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendants, are subject to foreign states, owing alle'giauee to the governments thereof ; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disallowed: Therefore, any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officer of the United States which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation is declared inconsistent with the funda- mental principles of the Republic. (Sec. 1999, Rev. Stat) This section declared that aliens have a right to become full citi> zens of the United States, and .section 2000, declaring their rights equaLwith those of native citizens, was its corollary ; but the law has always been construed as carrying by implication a declaration of the right of expatriation of Americans as well as foreigners. Expressed renunciation of American citizenship is, however, ex- tremely rare; but the class of Americans who separate themselves from_the United States and live within the jurisdiction of foreign countries is becoming larger every year, and the question of their protection causes increasing embarrassment to this Government in its relations with foreign powers. Immigration to the United States has of recent years reached pro- portions hitherto unheard of, and many of these immigrants will be- come naturalized citizens of the United States. Naturalized citizens are more apt to go abroad than native citizens. Having already changed their domicile, they are more apt to change it again. They come with the flood of prosperity and depart with it, and the number 26 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED- STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. of American citizens outside of the United States, already large, must for these and many other reasons increase in the future. One reason why the attempts which have been made in the past to secure a legis- lative definition of expatriation have failed is undoubtedly because the necessity has been slight in comparison with the necessity which now exists. It is the duty of the Executive to protect every American citizen while he is abroad from "unjust and unlawful molestation,, but it is not his duty to protect an American from just punishment for violating any law of a foreign country, and the refusal of protection is not necessarily a denial or American citizenship. There have been numerous instances of the refusal of the passport, which is now the only document issued by the Executive in authenti- cation of citizenship and right to protection, to citizens of the United States because of suspected intention to put the document to improper uses. In 1885 passports were refused to Mormon missionaries, who, the Secretary of State was convinced, went abroad to obtain emigrants to the United States who would upon their arrival practice polvgamy (Moore's Digest, III, 921), and on July 31, 1906, the Secretary of State instructed the agent and consul-general at Cairo to refuse a §assport to an American who was engaged in plots to assassinate the ultan of Turkey and desired to travel for this purpose. The most common reason for refusing a passport is, however, that the person refused is permanently resident abroad and does not intend to return to the United States. The ground of the refusal is that he has so ordered his life that it is made impossible for him to perform the duties of a citizen of the_ United States, having placed himself where he can not protect and defend the United States. ' It is held that the duties of a citizen toward the state and of the state toward a citizen are reciprocal obligations, and that the state is not bound to protect one who can not protect it. JjL_re.fusing pro- ' tection to a person who is resident abroad without intention of re- turning~to~this country «i^>p^^isj2ghts_of citizenship is withdrawn; but if his int ention changes a nd he returns t7Tt"he~United"STates i to res3xfe4ieTraryjjy^ur^at 6nce~his~ fight to protection '.'; and, aipoEusatis- fyin]El3!l~^ cre t ar y of~Stat§ of hisjntentionto return,-he may, if he goes_ abroad again,jreceiie-2his Xr-o-vern-ment's- document of protection. He may thus really play fast and loose with his nationality, resuming to-morrow rights which he lost yesterday. When and under what circumstances it is permissible to assume, that the conditions have arisen which require the withdrawal of pro- tection are matters left wholly to the discretion of the Executive, and he has no statute to guide him or support him. It is difficult to determine when those who have been absent from the United States for a long time and who give no tangible evidence, of an intention of returning should be left without protection. When they are refused they are aware that it is in the discretion of the Executive to accord them protection; they are aware that the policy toward them has not been stable and that one official may grant /what another has refused. They do not accept, therefore, a refusal ' as final, but strain their energies to induce a change of decision, and their cases remain open while their status remains undefined. It seems to be clear that these people have by their owju£tjKQrkejd- their own expatriation,, and that their status, should, be put_beyond the uncertainty or fluctuations of executive policy by a d«d^atory,law* CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 27 The presumption of the law, with respect to residence in a foreign country, especially if it be protracted, is that the party is there " ammo manendi," and it lies upon him to explain it. (Van Dyne on Citizenship, 273.) Daniel Webster, when Secretary of State, in a report to Congress, December, 1851, said: 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 residence, or his resi- dence 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 intention 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 (Opin- ions of the Principal Executive Officers, etc., p. 22.) There can be no dispute that the most certain evidence of intention of expatriation from a country is departure from it with intent not to return. The parent laws of our citizenship and naturalization laws were the Virginia laws of 1779 and 1782, which were drawn up by Thomas Jefferson, who recommended the enactment of the Federal law of 1802, upon which our system of naturalization rests. The Virginia law of 1779 is notable because it contained a provision for expatriation in the following terms: That whensoever any citizen of this commonwealth shall by word of mouth in_t]ie_Jiresen< e of the'court of the county wherein he resides, or of the general court, or by deeSTHjevriting^under his hand andL^eaLexecuted_in_ the presence of tly^ecPwitnesses, and bytlrem -proved in either "or the~said courts, openly declare to the same court that he relinquishes the character of a citizen and shall depart the commonwealth, such person shall be considered as having exercised his natural right of expatriating himself, and shall be deemed no citizen of this commonwealth from the time of his departure. (Chap. IV, vol. 10, p. 129, Hening's Stats, at Large.) Before the right of expatriation was generally recognized by the courts of the United States.it was held that iJLit existed permanent depar ture from t he United- States was the proof of~it. In 1822 the Supreme Court, in the Santissima Trinidad case, said, through Judge Story : Assuming, for the purpose of argument, that an American citizen may, inde- pendently 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 can^noT be done without_a_bona fide change of domicil under circum- stances of good faith. That is to say, if it can be done it can be done by a bona fide change of domicile. ' t >-' f As early as 1795, in a case involving the expatriation of a citizen of the United States, the Supreme Court said (the opinion of Mr. Justice Paterson) : A statute of the United States relative to expatriation is much wanted. * * * Besides, ascertaining by positive law the manner in which expatria- tion may be effected would obviate doubts, render the subject notorious and easy of apprehension, and furnish the rule of civil conduct on a very interest- ing point. (3 Dall., 154.) 28 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. President Grant, in his annual message of December 5, 1876, said : The United States has insisted upon the right of expatriation, and has ob- tained, after a long struggle, an admission of the principles contended for by acquiescence therein on the part of many foreign powers and by the conclusion of treaties on that subject It is, however, but justice to the government to which such naturalized citizens have formerly owed allegiance, as well as to the United States, that certain fixed and definite rules should be adopted governing such cases and providing how expatriation may be accomplished. , While emigrants in large numbers become citizens of the United States, it is also true that persons, both native born and naturalized, once citizens of the United States, either by formal acts or as the effect of a series of facts anil cir- cumstances, abandon their citizenship and cease to be entitled to the protection of the United States, but continue on convenient occasions to assert a claim to protection in the absence of provisions on these questions. * * * The deli- cate and complicating questions continually occurring with reference to natural- ization, expatriation, and the status of such persons as I have above referred to Induce me to earnestly direct your attention again to these subjects. These are merely examples of judicial and executive recommenda- tions on the subject, which could be multiplied, the last one being in the annual message of President Koosevelt in 1904. IV. The fourth recommendation is self-explanatory. If one who be- comes an American citizen thereby experiences a new political birth, one who loses American citizenship is in the same position as an alien and must do the things which are required of an alien before he can become an American citizen. V. The fifth recommendation is declaratory of a principle of public law which should be placed upon the statute books, so that no doubt can ever be raised on a point which may be vital to the United States. " The duty of a citizen when war breaks out," said the Supreme Court in 1856 (5 Wal., 408), " if it be a foreign war and he is abroad, is to return without delay," and it would seem to be equally evident that such is his duty if his Government is threatened by domestic insurrection. In time of war, domestic or foreign, the Government should be able to control the services of every citizen, and the right of changing allegiance should not exist when the State is in peril. In his Elements of International Law Halleck declares that (p. 133) " the right of voluntary expatriation exists only in time of peace and for lawful purposes." In 1873, in the notable letters from the heads of Executive Depart- ments to President Grant on the subject of protection and expatria- tion, Mr. Eichardson, then Secretary of the Treasury and afterwards chief justice of the Court of Claims, said : The conclusion from it all is that a citizen of the United States in time of peace, not deserting a public trust nor being a fugitive from justice, by re- nouncing his allegiance to this and becoming in good faith a citizen of another country, in accordance with the laws thereof, is denationalized. Mr. Fish, Secretary of State, said : It (expatriation) can not be exercised by one while residing in a country whose allegiance he desires to renounce nor during the existence of hostilities; no subject of a belligerent can transfer his allegiance or acquire another citizen- ship, as the desertion of one's country in time of war is an act of criminality, and to admit the right of expatriation, "flagrante bello," would be to afford a cover to desertion and treasonable aid to the public enemy. IV. EFFECT OF NATURALIZATION UPON STATUS OF WIFE AND MINOR CHILDREN. RECOMMENDATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS. Recommendations. 1. That an American woman who marries a foreigner shall take during coverture the nationality of her husband ; but upon termina- tion of the marital relation by death or absolute divorce she may revert to her American citizenship by registering within one year as an American citizen at the most convenient American consulate or by returning to reside in the United States if she is abroad; or if she is in the United States by continuing to reside therein. 2. That a foreign woman who acquires American citizenship by marriage to an American shall be assumed to retain her American citizenship upon termination by death or absolute divorce of the marital relation if she continues to reside in the United States, un- less she makes formal renunciation of such citizenship before a court having jurisdiction to naturalize aliens; and if she proceeds abroad she may conserve American citizenship by registering within a year as an American citizen before the most convenient American con- sulate. 3. A minor and nonresident child born without the United States of alien and nonresident parents shall be deemed a citizen of the United States by virtue of the naturalization of the parents, pro- vided, however, that such naturalization take place during the mi- nority of such child; and provided further, that the citizenship of such minor child shall date from the entry of such minor into the United States permanently to reside therein. Observations. The question of naturalization by virtue of the marriage relation- ship came before Congress as early as 1804, with the result that that body passed an act providing — 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 pursued the directions prescribed in the second section of the said act, may die before he is actually naturalized, the widow and children of such alien shall be considered as citizens of the United States, and shall be entitled to all rights and privileges as such upon taking the oaths prescribed by law. This, of course, would not cover the case of an alien woman who married an American citizen, naturalized or native. A number of cases having arisen involving this point, as will be seen from those cited below, Congress in 1855 made further provision as follows: 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. 29 30 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. This statute seems based directly upon the English statute 7th and 8th Vict., chap. 66, sec. 16, which provides : And lie it enacted, That any woman married or who shall be married to a natural-born subject or person 'naturalized shall be deemed and taken to be herself naturalized, and have all the rights and privileges of a natural-born subject. This statute remains practically unchanged at the present time. (1) NATURALIZATION BY NATURALIZATION OP THE HUSBAND. Where the wife is a resident. — A number of cases arose under the acts of 1802 and 1804, the general effect of which was well expressed by Chief Justice Simpson in White v. White, 1859, 2 Met. (Ky.), 185, 191, when he said : Naturalization is a personal privilege, and the alien wife does not become a naturalized citizen by the naturalization of the husband. The acts of Congress do not impart to it that effect, nor are we apprised of any law which at the time of the decedent's death conferred upon his wife the right to take real estate by descent in consequence of his naturalization, although such a right has been since conferred upon an alien wife whose husband is a citizen of the United States by the Revised Statutes. In accordance with this view, it was held that the alien widow of an American citizen could not take dower (Sutliff v. Forgey, 1823, 1 Cowen, 89, affirmed in 5 Cowen, 713), and it has since been said that " it has never been supposed since Sutliff v. Forgev that her capacity followed that of her husband." (Connolly v. Smith, 1839, 21 Wend., 59.) The courts have, morever, been consistent in this ruling and have applied it in favor of native American women whose husbands had become naturalized in a foreign State. (Moore v. Tisdale, 1845, 5 B. Mon., 352.) But the statute of 1855 has been interpreted, properly, it would seem, to declare a new rule, which is, as stated by the court in Kelly v. Owen, 1868, 7 Wall., 496, that^- It confers the privileges of citizenship upon women married to citizens of the United States if they are of the class of persons for whose naturalization the previous acts of Congress provide. And the cases have uniformly taken this position. (Kane v. McCarthy, 1869, 63 N. C, 299 ; Eenner v. Muller, 1879, 57 How. Pr., 229; People v. Newell, 1885, 38 Hun, 78; Kreitz v. Behrensmever, 1888, 126 111., 141.) Of course the mere taking of the declaratory oath will by the terms of the statute have no such effect if the husband is still living. (Dorsey v. Brigham, 1898, 177 111., 350.) Moreover, as stated in Kelly v. Owen, for the wife to be so natural- ized by the naturalization of the husband she must be one of those classes of persons who may, according to the naturalization laws, become citizens of the United States. (Leonard v. Grant, 1880, 5 Fed., 11, 17, s. c. 6 Sawy.,603.) Where wife is a nonresident. — Certainly, on any logical application of principle, if a resident wife under the early laws was not esteemed a citizen, a nonresident wife must be considered in the same position, and this has been the ruling of the courts. (Kelly v. Harrison, 1800, 2 Johns. Cas., 29; Greer v. Sankston, 4858, 26 How. Pr., 473.) Since the act of 1855 the matter has been again before the courts in Burton CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 31 v. Burton, 1864, 26 How. Pr., 474, on facts the same as those in the cases citeihfibove, except that in Burton v. Burton the widow came to America. The court discussed elaborately the authorities, and in the course of its opinion said : In this case, the plaintiff has neither sought to derive the benefit of her husband's naturalization by cumins with or following him here, in order to entitle herself to the benefit of a liberal construction in her favor of the act, as suggested, by a residence in this country of any duration prior to her hus- band's death. Her rights, therefore, as a citizen, depend entirely upon the construction of the section of the statute under consideration, and I am of the opinion that she has no claim up ;n her husband's estate thereunder. He was not, when he married her, a citizen of the United States, and she was never a resident thereof during his life. On the contrary, she was and con- tinued to be bjth alien and stranger. The plaintiff being an alien, and having married an alien, and not having resided in this country pri >r to her husband's de^th, has no dower right in the lands of which her husband died seized, under the provisions of the act of the legislature passed in 18J0. But the principle has not been followed in a case where an Amer- ican woman whose husband became a citizen of a foreign State (Texas) always resided in the United States, the court holding in. this case that the wife became a citizen of the foreign State. (Kircher v. Murray, 1893, 54 Fed., 617.) (2) NATURALIZATION BY MARRIAGE TO A CITIZEN. An alien woman marries an American citizen. — The courts have made no distinction, as to the status of the wife, between those cases in which the woman married an alien who later became a citizen and those in which she married one who was already a citizen, and in the latter situation, no difference is made between cases in which the citizen is a naturalized citizen and those in which he is a native- born citizen. In the cases of Mick v. Mick, 1833, 10 Wend., 379, and Priest v. Cummings, 1837, 16 Wend., 617 (cases of dower), the. court charac- terized the widow as an " alien widow of a foreign bom citizen" and so refused her dower. The same holding was made in Currin v. Finn, 1846, 3 Denio, 229, though it does not appear whether the husband was a native or naturalized citizen. But, under the statute of 18">5, the courts have changed their rul- ings and have uniformly recognized the principle that an alien woman by marrying an American citizen becomes thereby herself a citizen. (Knickerbocker Life Insurance Companv v. Gorbach, 1871, 70 Pa. St., 150; United States v. Kellar, 1882, 13 Fed., 82, S. C, 6 Sawy., 603; Kane v. McCarthy, 1869, 63 N. C, 299; Kreitz v. Behrensmeyer, 1888, 125 111.. 141 ; People v. Newell, 1885, 38 Hun., 78; Giimm v. Hubbard, 1888, 97 Mo., 341.) This has indeed been followed where the husband was foreign born, and depended for his citizenship upon the citizenship of his father (Ware v. Wisner, 1883, 50 Fed., 310), and it appears immaterial that at the time of the marriage the parties are not and do not reside in the United States. (Halsey v. Beer, 1889, 52 Hun., 366.) The act is held to naturalize a negro under the provisions of the fourteenth amendment. (Broadis v. Broadis, 1898, 86 Fed., 951.) 32 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. The general effect of the act of 1855 was well stated in Kelly v. Owen, 7 Wall., 498, as follows : As we construe this act, it confers the privileges of citizenship upon women married to citizens of the United States if they are of the class of persons for whose naturalization the previous acts of Congress provide. The terms "mar- ried " or " who shall be married " 'do not refer, in our judgment, to the time when the ceremony of marriage is celebrated, but to-a state of marriage. They mean that whenever a woman who under previous acts might be naturalized is in a state of marriage to a citizen, whether his citizenship existed at the passage of the act or subsequently, or before or after the marriage, she becomes, by that fact, a citizen also. His citizenship, whenever it exists, confers under the act citizenship upon her. The construction which would restrict the act to women whose husbands at the time of marriage are citizens would exclude far the greater number, for whose benefit, as we think, the act was in- tended. Its object, in our opinion, was to allow her citizenship to follow that of her husband without the necessity of any application for naturalization on her part, and if this was the object there is no reason for the restriction suggested. To the same effect see Kane v. McCarthy (1869, 63 N. C, 299) and Luhrs v. Eimer (1880, 80 N. Y., 171). A native citizen {woman) marries a foreign citizen — A resident foreigner. — In the one case found upon this point (Comitis v. Park- erson, 1893, 56 Fed., 556) the husband had taken up a permanent residence in the United States and had established here a business. In holding that by marriage to such an alien the wife did not lose her American citizenship, the court said : The question may be generalized thus : Does a woman who was a citizen of the United States, who never intended to leave it and never did leave it. be- come expatriated and become an alien by marriage with a man who had been a subject of Italy, but who, previous to his marriage, had settled in Louisiana and had forever severed himself from Italy? The present case is supported by a dictum in Kreitz v. Behrens- meyer, supra, to this effect : The citizenship of a woman thus acquired [by marriage with a citizen hus- bandl is not lost by the subsequent death of her husband and her afterwards Intermarrying with an alien. These cases should be considered in connection with Pequignot v. Detroit, infra, from which it may be distinguished on its facts (and was so distinguished by the court), though the spirit of the two is opposed. A nonresident foreigner. — Since the courts in the early cases held that the status of an alien woman was not changed by her marriage to an American citizen, they should hold, to be consistent, that the status of an American woman was not changed by her marriage to a foreigner. Such a conclusion was reached in Shanks v. Dupont, 1830, 3 Pet., 242. The question arose in two earlier cases, Sewell v. Lee, 1812, 9 Mass., 363, and Barzizas v. Hopkins, 1824, 2 Randolph, 276. In the first, however, the court expressly refused to decide the question since the defendant had by his plea admitted a capacity to sue, and in the second the decision might have been placed on another ground. (See also Beck v. McGillis, 1850, 9 Barb., 35, and Jennes v. Landes, 1897, 84 Fed., 13.) In the most recent case in which the question seems to have been up (Ruckgaber v. Moore, 1900, 104 Fed., 947) , the court declared that a woman marrying an alien becomes a foreign citizen, provided there " be that withdrawal from her native country, or equivalent act, CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATBTATION, ETC. 33 expressive of her election to renounce her former citizenship as a con- . sequence of her marriage." A naturalised American citizen {woman) marries a foreign citi- zen. — But one case has been found on this point in which the facts were that an alien of "French parentage by her marriage with an American citizen had been deemed, under the act of 1855, to have been naturalized as a citizen. From this husband she was divorced and later married her second husband, an alien Frenchman, who had never even declared his intention to become a citizen. The court held that she was an alien and incompetent to sue in the Federal courts. As already stated, while the court in Comitis t\ Parkerson, supra, dis- tinguished the two cases by stating that — In that case [Pequignot v. Detroit] the facts characterizing the residence of the husband and wife may have made it what the public writers term " tem- porary residence," whereas the intent of the plaintiff and her husband was to remain in the United States always, yet the spirit of the two cases is opposed, and it may be doubted if both can stand. It may be stated in conclusion that, if the courts take the position announced in Comitis v. Parkerson, and also follow the holdings in such cases as Ware v. Wisner, supra; Halsey v. Beer, supra (to the effect that an alien woman nonresident marrying a nonresident Amer- ican citizen becomes thereby an American citizen), and if foreign countries assume the same position we shall have in every case of naturalization by marriage, for which naturalization the statutes of England, France, Germany, and America provide, a case of dual allegiance, because under the rule announced in Halsey -o. Beer, the King of Italy might insist that the native-born citizen wife of Augustine Comitis became a subject, by that marriage, of Italy, and it must be deemed immaterial, under the decision of Halsey v. Beer, that the husband in the Comitis case was a permanent resident of America. From the. standpoint of comity and the avoidance of con- ditions of dual allegiance, the decision in Pequignot v. Detroit, seems the sounder. (3) NATURALIZATION BY NATURALIZATION OF THE FATHER. Since the statute of 1795 it has been uniformly held that a minor child was naturalized by' the naturalization of the father. (Matter of Morrison, 1861, 22 How. Pr., 99 ; People v. McNally, 1880, 59 How. Pr., 500; State v. Mims, 1879, 26 Minn., 183; Prentice v. Miller, 1890, 82 Cal., 570; Dorsey v. Brigham, 1898, 177 111., 250; and see Haynes v. Eay, 1880, 54 Iowa, 109.) But the taking of the preliminary steps looking toward naturaliza- tion (e. g., making of the declaratory oath) has no such effect. (Berry v. Hull, 1892, 6 N. Mex., 643, 660; In re Conway, 1863, 17 Wis., 526 ; In re Moses, 1897, 83 Fed., 995 ; and see ex parte Overing- ton, 1812, 6 Binn., 371 ; unless the father dies before completing his naturalization. Schrimpf v. Settegast, 1873, 38 Tex., 96.) Under the case of Campbell v. Gordon, 1809, 6 Cranch., 176, it must be considered immaterial that the child is a nonresident at the time of the parent's naturalization. An extreme case in this point is Young v. Peck, 1839, 21 Wend., 389, where the foreign-born child remained in her native country for fifty years, during which time she H. Doc. 326, 59-2 3 34 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. was married to and lived (until his death) with an alien husband. The court held she was a citizen, but the grounds of the decision are. not clear. (Ludlam v. Ludlam, 1860, 31 Barb., 486, at 491, S. C. affirmed on appeal 26 N. Y., 356.) Obviously it must follow, in view of these decisions, that if the children are resident in America at the time of the father's naturalization they will be considered to be naturalized by that act, and such has been the holding of the courts. (West v. West, 1840, 8 Paige, Ch. 433 ; State v. Penny, 1850, 10 Ark., 621 ; O'Connor v. State, 1860, 9 Fla., 215 ; North Noonday Mining Company v. Orient Mining Company, 1880, 6 Sawy., 299; State v. Andriano, 1887, 92 Mo., 70, 76.) It will thus be seen that there are two cases, Campbell v. Gordon and Young v. Peck, in which the question arose as to whether or not children born abroad and resident there at the time of the naturaliza- tion of their parents in America became by that act citizens of the United States. Both cases are peculiar on their facts. In Camp- bell v. Gordon the daughter came to America while she was yet a minor and before the passage of the act by virtue of which she was afterwards declared a citizen. The effect of the judgment was that the statute applied retrospectively. It must be said, however, either that the court considered that the act was intended to cover all aliens whose parents had been naturalized or who had come to America up to the date of the passage of the act, or that residence in America at the time of the perents' naturalization is not necessary. In Young v. Peck, as already indicated, the ground of the decision is not clear. Following the argument of the chancellor, it is to be rested on the fact that the father's citizenship was due to the read- justment of allegiances at the end of the war, and that a citizenship so gained is sui generis. This conclusion, however, that there can be any different kinds of citizenship is not in accord with the determinations made in other cases, for in Crane v. Eeeder (1872, 25 Mich., 303), that precise question was up before the court. It appeared there that the citi- zenship of the parent of the person in question was acquired by his continued residence in the United States after the treaty of 1797, in which it was provided, as is usual in such treaties, that all British subjects remaining within the United States beyond a certain time should be deemed to have elected to become American citizens. The court held that citizenship acquired in this manner was in no way different from that acquired in any other way. That citizenship was citizenship, however obtained. With that point out of the case of Young v. Peck we are forced to the position that residence in the United States at the time of the naturalization of the parent, or, indeed, during minority, is unnecessary, and that whenever the child comes into this country he is to be treated as a citizen. In all the cases cited subsequent to Young v. Peck in which the courts used language to the effect that the minor children must be resident here at the time of the naturalization of the father the fact was that the children had been so resident, and the statement of the court to that effect, therefore, was immaterial, a mere dictum. This leaves us, therefore, with the following questions open for determination: First, must the child reside in America at the time of the father's naturalization, or is it sufficient that he come to Amer- ica at any time before he reaches majority? And, secondly, is he to CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 35 be considered a citizen before he acquires a residence in the United States — that is, does he become, as does the wife of one naturalizing himself in America, a citizen by virtue of such naturalization irre- spective of the place in which he lives ? It is to clear the law on this point that the recommendations con- cerning, a revision of the statute relating to naturalization by nat- uralization of the parent are made. Illegitimate children. — It has been held that an illegitimate child becomes a citizen by the naturalization of his reputed father, who had before naturalization married his mother. (Dale v. Irwin, 1875, 78 111., 170 ; and see, as bearing on this point, Bloithe v. Ayres, 1892, 96 CaL, 532, and Guyer v. Smith, 1864, 22 Md., 239.) (4) NATURALIZATION BY NATURALIZATION OF MOTHER. The cases are sufficient to show that where a widow takes out her naturalization papers her minor children become thereby citizens. • (Brown v. Shilling, 1856, 9 Md., 74.) It is not clear, however, as to just what is the naturalizing power where a widow, having alien children by a former husband, marries an American citizen. In Kreitz v. Behrensmeyer, supra, the court said : And the children of such a woman (when naturalized by marrying a citizen), under the age of 21 years, become citizens by virtue of her citizenship. While the cases on this subject are neither numerous nor express, it is, however, settled doctrine that the minor children of a widow are naturalized by the mother's marriage to an American citizen or to one who becomes an American citizen during the minority of the children in question. (See, on this point, U. S. v. Kellar, 1882, 13 Fed., 82; Gunn v. Hubbard, 1888, 97 Mo., 331; People v. Newell, 1885, 38 Hun, 78; Dale v. Irwin, 78 111., 170, 185; U. S. v. Rodgers, 1906, 144 Fed., 711.) APPENDIXES. 37 Appendix I. CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES. CONTENTS. A. Judicial determinations of questions of citizenship. Introductory Chapter. Pae:e. Definition of citizen 43 Classification of subject 44 State and Federal citizenship 44 Status of residents 47 Part I. — Citizenship by birth. Chapter I. Children born within the territory of the United States: Sec. 1. Of inhabitants not aliens 52 A. Indians 52 B. Africans ; 62 C. Mixed races ; 66 D. Porto Ricans and Filipinos 72 Sec. 2. Of alien inhabitants 73 A. Where parents may become citizens 73 B. Where parents may not become citizens 73 C. Election of citizenship 74 Chapter II. Children born abroad: Sec. 1. Children born of Americans permanently resident abroad 77 A. Of native' Americans : 77 B. Of naturalized Americans 78 Sec. 2. Children born of Americans temporarily resident abroad 79 A. Of native Americans ". 79 B. Of naturalized Americans 79 Sec. 3. Election of citizenship • 79 Part II. — Citizenship by naturalization. Chapter I. Naturalization in accordance with general laws . 80 Sec. 1. Where the naturalizing power resides 80 Sec. 2. Courts that may naturalize aliens 88 A. Composition of courts 88 B. Jurisdiction of courts 90 C. Enumeration of courts '. 95 D. Capacity in which the State courts act 95 Sec. 3. Requirements for naturalization 98 A. Who may be naturalized 98 (a) Indians 98 (ft) Africans 99 (c) Chinese 99 ( d) Japanese 100 («) Burmans 100 (/) Hawaiians 100 (g) Alien enemies 101 (h) Married women 102 B. Residence necessary " 102 (a) Persons who are of age 102 First. Residence before making the declaratory oath 106 Second. Residence before taking out final papers 106 Third. How residence is proved 110 (6) Minors 114 C. Qualifications 115 39 40 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. Chapter I — Continued. Page Sec. 4. Formalities of naturalization 119 A. Declaration of intention ' 119 ( a) When made 119 (b) Before whom made 119 First. Before what court 119 Second. Before what officer of the court 119 (c) What is a sufficient declaration 121 Id) Wherefiled 121 (e) Proof of intention 121 (/) Necessity for declaration 122 lg) Effect of declaration 122 (h) Declaration with residence 122 ( i ) When the declaration is dispensed with 122 B. Petition for naturalization 124 (a) When the petition may be made . . . 124 (b) To whom the petition must be made 124 (c) What the petition must contain 124 (d) The final hearing "... 125 Sec. 5. Nature of naturalization proceedings. . '. 125 Sec. 6. How naturalization is proved 127 A. The record 127 ( a ) What the record must contain 128 (b) How the record is regarded , 129 (c) How the record may be amended 129 B. The certificate of naturalization 130 C. Method of proving naturalization 131 Sec. 7. Impeachment of naturalization proceedings 131 A. Who may impeach 131 B. For what impeached 133 C. In what way impeached 134 D. What evidence will impeach 135 E. Effect on impeachment of lapse of time 136 Sec. 8. Effect of naturalization 136 Chapter H. Naturalization by naturalization of parent ■ 138 Sec. 1. Naturalization by naturalization of the father 138 Sec 2. Naturalization by naturalization of the mother 143 Chapter III. Naturalization by virtue of marriage relationship 144 Sec 1. Naturalization by naturalization of the husband 145 A. Where the wife is a resident 145 B. Where the wife is a nonresident 147 Sec. 2. Naturalization by marriage to a citizen 148 A. Alien woman marries an American citizen 148 B. A native citizen (woman \, marries a foreign citizen 150 (a) Marries a resident foreigner 150 (6) Marries a nonresident foreigner 150 C A naturalized American citizen (woman) marries a foreign citizen. 152 Chapter IV. Naturalization by admission of a new State into the Union 153 Sec. 1. Admission of a Territory as a State 153 Sec. 2. Admission of a sovereign State 154 Chapter "V . Collective naturalization 155 Chapter VI. Naturalization by treaty '. 155 Chapter VII. Naturalization by conquest 158 Part III. — Loss of citizenship. Chapter I. .Under statutory provision '. 159 Sec 1. Deserting soldiers 159 Chapter II. Expatriation IgO Sec. 1. Right of expatriation IgO Sec. 2. 'What may amount to expatriation „ 162 A. Expatriation by taking oath of allegiance to a foreign government. 162 B. By performance of official duties under appointment from a foreign government 163 C. Performance of foreign military duty • '_'//_ 163 (o) Expeditions against neutrals 163 (J ) Expeditions against the United States 164 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 41 8 Chapter II — Continued. Page. Sec. 2 — Continued. D. Exercising the functions of a citizen in a foreign government 164 E. Residence abroad 164 By native American citizens ; 164 By naturalized American citizens 166 V. In the country of the first allegiance 166 2'. In a country other than that of the first allegiance 166 F. Marriage to a foreign subject 166 Sec. 3. Reversion of original citizenship 167 Sec. 4. Effect of expatriation 168 EXHIBIT. A. Text of laws 168 B. Extraterritorialty as affecting questions of nationality and citizenship 196 EXHIBITS. A. Countries in which the United States exercises extraterritorial jurisdiction. 214 B. Countries in which extraterritorial jurisdiction once possessed by the United States has been relinquished 215 C. Treaty provisions granting extraterritorial jurisdiction to the United States, in force January 1, 1907 216 D. The American system 222 E. United States statutes 226 F. Consular court regulations 237 G. Consular court regulations for China (general), 1864 238 H. Opinions of attorneys-general 246 Table of cases cited in Appendix 1 249 Appendix I. A. JUDICIAL DETEBMINATIONS OF QUESTIONS OF CITIZENSHIP. In the preparation of this memorandum the aim has been to collect cases dealing with the fact of citizenship and to omit cases adjudicat- ing the rights and duties of citizens. Whenever it has seemed neces- sary to gives cases involving these latter subjects, they have been limited as much as possible. Effort has been made to present a fairly full collection of cases bearing on the fact of citizenship, but no at- tempt has been made to analyze and get out the fundamental the- ories of citizenship, more than was absolutely necessary for the classification. Indeed, the purpose has been to make merely a classi- fied digest of the cases. Moreover, the classification used has not been adopted with a view to supporting any theory of citizenship, but because it seemed at the same time the most familiar as well as the most scientific. No hesitancy has been felt in the use of dicta, since it has been sought -not only to give the express adjudications on the subject, but also the judicial thought on the matter. It has not been thought advisable to enter into any discussion as to what is citizenship, this question being largely theoretical and one upon which a wide difference of view might exist. It may not, however, be amiss to begin the subject by a quotation from, a decision of the Supreme Court defining the word " citizen : " The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words " citizen of the United States " and " natural-born citizen of the United States." By the original Constitution every Representative in Congress is required to have been " seven years a citizen of the United States " and every Senator to have been " nine years a citizen of the United States ; " and " no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adop- tion of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President." The four- teenth article of amendment, besides declaring that "all persons born or natural- ized in the -United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside," also declares that " no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immu- nities of citizens 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 the fifteenth arti- cle of amendment declares that " the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that " all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this respect, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common "This compilation aims to present the judicial construction and interpre- tation of the various sections and provisions of the statutes relating to citizen- ship and naturalization which have been the subject of judicial decision. Inasmuch as the naturalization act of June 29, 1906, has not as yet been passed upon by the courts, it is not referred to in the text. It has, however, been printed in the appendix of laws hereunto annexed, so that all the statutes bear- ing upon the questions of citzeuship and naturalization may be included. 43 44 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the franiers of the Constitution. (Per Mr. Justice Gray in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1897, 169 U. S., 649, 654.) In a subsequent paragraph of the same opinion the court sets forth the two methods by which citizenship of the United States may be acquired. He says : The fourteenth amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that " all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdic- tion thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside," contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only : birth and nat- uralization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturali- zation under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the juris- diction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts. ( P. 702. ) And in the earlier case of Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall., 162, 167, Mr. Chief Justice Waite made the same classification : Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways : first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that " no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," and that Congress shall have power " to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. This classification, which, as suggested above, has the merit of being not only scientific, but the one usually followed, has been adopted in this report, and accordingly the matter following will be divided into two parts, " Citizenship by birth " and " Citizenship by naturalization," with a third part discussing more or less briefly the question of " Loss of citizenship, by expatriation or otherwise." However, before proceeding to a discussion of the subject accord- ing to such plan two preliminary questions should be disposed of. FIRST. STATE AND FEDERAL CITIZENSHIP. From the very earliest decisions the courts have recognized two citizenships perfectly distinct, and, from some viewpoints, wholly independent one of the other. Indeed, the Constitution itself recog- nized and provided for such citizenship, Article III, section 2, as does also the language of the fourteenth amendment. (See Slaugh- terhouse cases, 1872, 16 Wall., 36, 73.?) This point, therefore, needs little consideration beyond naming decisions in which the mat- ter was more or less directly adjudicated or referred to. It may be said, however, that certainly as early as 1795 the fact that a man might be a citizen both of a State and of the United States was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States. (Talbot v. <•■ It seems thoroughly well recognized that from these two citizenships there arise two sets of rights, one set being within the protection of the Federal Government under the fourteenth amendment and the other left to regulation by the State. (See Ex parte Kinney, 1879, 3 Hughes, 1, and cases cited; Cully v. B. & O. R. R., 1876, id., 536; and also the early case of Corfield v. Coryell, 1823, 4 Wash. C. C, 371, 380, where the rights of citizens of the United States are comprehensively but briefly sketched. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 45 Jansen, 1795, 3 Dall., 133. And see Gassies v. Ballon, 1832, 6 Peters, 759.) The principle has received a rather careful statement in the case of United States v. Cruikshank, 1785, 92 U. S„ 542, 550 : The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments : one State and the other national ; but there need be no conflict between the two. The powers which one po«esses the other does nut. They are established tor different purposes, and have separate jurisdictions. To- gether they make one whole, and furnish the people of the United States with a complete government, ample for the^protection of all their rights at home and abroad. True, it may sometimes happen that a person is amenable to both jurisdictions for one and the same act. * * * This does not, however, neces- sarily imply that the two governments possess powers in common or bring them into conflict with each other. It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties and claims protection from both. The citizen can not complain because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties which each exacts from disobedience to its laws. In return he can demand protection from each within its own jurisdiction." 1 As suggested above, the courts have always recognized the distinc- tion between the two citizenships. In Talbot v. Jansen, supra, it appeared that provision had been made by a State constitution for renunciation of allegiance to the State. While recognizing the effi- cacy of this so far as it concerned the State, the Supreme Court held that it had no effect as to the party's allegiance to the United States. Therefore a State citizenship may be lost by renunciation, or, as it appears from Prentice r. Brannan, 2 Blatch., 162, by a residence out- side the State, without in any way affecting the national citizenship. Moreover, it has been held that one who, during the late rebellion, espoused the cause of the South and maintained his allegiance to the State did not and could not by this act renounce his citizenship of the United States. (Planters' Bank v. St. John, 1869, 1 Woods, 585. 6 ) While some courts have, indeed, scouted the idea that there can be a citizen of a State unless he be also a citizen of the United States (Lanz v. Randall, 1876, 4 Dill., 428), and hence that to become a citi- zen of a State he must comply with the national naturalization laws, op cit., this result has not always been reached, however, for in the case of In re Wehlitz, 1863, 16 Wis., 443, where the facts before the court were similar to that in the case last cited, the court held that one might be a citizen of a State although not a citizen of the United States, and hence to become a citizen of a State it was not necessary that the national naturalization laws should have been complied with This later seems to be the general view. (See Desbois's case, 1812, 2 Martin, 185; United States v. Laverty, 1813, 3 Martin, 733; Ameri- can Insurance Co. v. Canter, 1828, 1 Peters, 511.) The question of State citizenship, as distinct from national citizen- ship is most frequently raised in connection with two classes of cases. First, those in which it is sought to compel State authorities to per- «This question of dual allegiance is, of course, thoroughly well recog- nized and it has been held also that the allegiance to the United States is para- mount (United States v, Greiner, 1861, 4 Phila., 396, 402. And see involving this principle, but not deciding questions of citizenship, Cohens ■ v. Virginia, 1821 6 Wheat., 264, 381 ; Ableman v. Booth, 1858, 21 How., 506, 517.) _ 6 For other cases bearing on the status of residents in the South during the civil war, see The Peterhoff, 1866, 5 Wall., 28; U. S. v. Gremer, 1861, 4 Phil., 396; Hoskins v. Gentry, 1865, 12 Duv. (63 Ky.), 285 ; Zachane v. Godfrey, 1869,' 99 Am. Dec, 506, and note. 46 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATBIATION, ETC. mit an applicant to vote on the theory that suffrage is the inalienable right of a citizen, and, secondly, those in which the question to be determined is whether or not a party is a citizen of the United States or of a State within the clauses of the Constitution relating to juris- diction of the Federal courts. First. The right of suffrage. — While some courts have insisted that such was one of the distinguishing marks of citizenship, if not of national citizenship, then of citizenship of the State (see In re Wehlitz, 1863, 16 Wis., 443), yet the courts" almost unanimously have denied that the two had any necessary connection, and that not only might persons who are not citizens exercise the elective franchise (City of Minneapolis v. Eeum, 1893, 56 Fed., 576), but that citizens as such were not entitled to vote, not even within the provisions of the fourteenth amendment. A number of cases bearing on the sub- ject are collected in a note below." Second. The question of citizenship as affecting jurisdiction. — This point maj\ for the purposes of this report, be briefly disposed of. In the case of Prentiss v. Brannon, 1851, 2 Blatch., 162, already referred to, it appeared, that a party had left the United States and had gone to Canada, where he had lived for a number of years. It was held that although he had lost, by such residence, his State citizenship, within the meaning of the constitutional provision which permits citizens of different States to bring suit in the Federal courts, he had not lost his national citizenship. The same result was reached under similar circumstances (except that one party was still resident abroad) in Picquet v. Swan, 1828, 5 Mason, 35; and see as to the residence of corporations, Catlett & Keith v. Insurance Co., 1826, 1 Paine C. C, 594.* ° See holding that the elective franchise is not a necessary incident of citi- zenship: 1. As to negroes — Smith v. Moody, 1866, 26 Ind., 299; United States v. Crosby, 1871, 1 Hughes, 448; Anthony v. Holderman, 1871, 7 Kans.. 50; Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 1872, 43 Cal., 42 ; United States v. Petersburg, , 3 Hughes, 493; United States v. Reese, 1875, 92 U. S., 214; and see Opinions of Justices, 1857, 44 Me., 507. 2. As to women— Spencer v. Board, 1873, 8 D. C, 169 ; United States v. Anthony, 1873, 11 Blatch., 200 ; Minor v. Happer- sett. 1874, 21 Wall., 162 ; Dorsey v. Brigham, 177 111., 250 ; Gougar v. Timber- lake, 1896, 148 Ind., 38; and see also People v. Oldtown, 1878, 88 111., 202; also Ware v. Wisner, 1883, 50 Fed., 310, holding that women are citizens. S. As to minors — Lyons v. Cunningham, 1884, 66 Cal., 42; and see People v. Oldtown, supra. 4. As to Indians, holding that though they may have voted, this did not make them citizens — Laurent v. State, 1863, 1 Kans., 313, 315. 5. As to aliens — Spragins v. Houghton, 1840, 2 Scam. (3 111.), 377; In re Wehlitz, 1863, 16 Wis., 443 ; United States v. Hirschfield, 1876, 13 Blatch., 330 ; Lanz r. Randall, 1876, 4 Dill., 425; City of Minneapolis v. Reum, 1893, 56 Fed., 576. An averment in pleading that one was " a citizen and resident " was held not equivalent to a specific charge that lie was an "elector" — Blanck v. Pausch, 1885, 113 111., 60. That the elective franchise is not a right of citizenship is shown also by the fact that the courts have repeatedly sustained legislation which provides for a certain prior residence before voting in the county, town, and precinct. See Anthony v. Holderman, 1871, 7 Kans.; 50. And for the imposition of other requirements for voting see Anderson v. Baker, 1865, 23 Md., .531 : People v. De La Guerra, 1870, 40 Cal.. 311. » In McGregor v. McGregor, 1864, 1 Keyes, 133, 136, the question was raised as to whether or not a citizen leaving State A and going into State B, where he became a permanent resident, thereby losing his citizenship of State A, was an alien within the meaning of the statutes and the Constitution relating to jurisdiction of Federal courts. In discussing the matter Denio, J., said : " The respondent is a native of this State, but, at the time of applying for letters testamentary, was domiciled in the State of Iowa. He was not an CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 47 This same question has frequently arisen with relation to the citi- zenship of an inhabitant of the District of Columbia, whether such a one was a citizen of a State within the meaning 01 the Constitu- tion, and the answer has uniformly been in the negative, though the courts have in most cases at the same time either expressly asserted or assumed that the parties were, notwithstanding this, citizens of the United States. (See Hepburn v. Ellzey, 1805, 2 Cranch, 445; Reily v. Lamar, 1805, 2 Cr., 344; Westcott's Lessee v. Fairfield, 1811, Peters C. C, 45; Vasse v. Mifflin, 1825, 4 Wash. C. C, 519; Barney v. Baltimore City, 1867, 6 Wall., 280; Cissel v. McDonald, 1879, 16 Blatch., 150.) The same result has been reached where the question has arisen in connection with an inhabitant of a Territory. (Corporation of New Orleans v. Winter, 1816, 1 Wheat., 91. See American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1828, 1 Peters, 511.) And in Sinks v. Reese, 1869, 19 Ohio St., 306, the same ruling was declared with reference to residents of Government reservations. SECOND. STATUS OF RESIDENTS. The question must arise as to whether or not one may gain or lose citizenship in the nation by residence in or away from a coun- try. Some phases of this are discussed in connection with questions of expatriation, part 3, but a few preliminary statements seem desir- able. It is entirely clear that one who resides in a country assumes a cer- tain relationship to it which differs from that assumed toward any other foreign nation, and that on its part the nation in which he re- sides stands in a relationship toward its alien residents different from that which it has toward nonresident aliens. The relationship exist- ing between a country and an alien resident was explained by Mr. Chief Justice Gray in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1897, 169 U. S., 649, 655, as follows : Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim, protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and where not re- stricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. inhabitant of this State, but he was not, in any sense known to the law, an alien. It would be quite preposterous to say that a native-born citizen of this State becomes an alien to its laws by going to reside in another of the States in the Union, or even in a foreign country. (See Ludlam v. Ludlam, June term, 1863). * * * The provision of the Federal Constitution which de- clares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immu- nities of citizens of the several States, precludes the objection of alienage from being set up in any State against a person born in any of the United States, and constitutes all such persons, for all legal purposes, citizens of each State in the Federal Union. (Art. 4, sec. 2 ; Lemon v. The People, 20 N. Y., 562, 607.) They are not, it is true, resident citizens of any State except the one in which they are domiciled, and can not claim any rights belonging peculiarly to residents out of their own State. But the statutory disability attaches only to such as are both aliens and nonresidents. There is no reason to suppose that the term alien was used in this statute in any other than its legal sense. That is, at the same time, its popular meaning, and the word when used simply and without any qualifying language can not have any other signification than the one which the law and common parlance affixes to it. This alleged ground of disqualification can not, therefore, be sustained." 48 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. In the earlier case of Carlyle v. United States, 1872; 16 Wall., 147, 154, Mr. Justice Field laid down the controlling principle in these words : "The rights of sovereignty," says Wildman, in his Institutes on Interna- tional Law, " extend to all persons and things not privileged that are within the territory. They extend to all strangers therein, not only to those who are naturalized and to those who are domiciled therein, having taken up their abode with the intention of permanent residence, but also to those whose residence is transitory. All strangers are under the protection of the sovereign while they are within his territories, and owe a temporary allegiance in return for that protection." By allegiance is meant the obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the government under which he lives, or to his sovereign in return for the protection he receives It may be an absolute and permanent obligation, or it may be a qualified and temporary one. The citizen or subject owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign, or at least until, by some open and distinct act, he renounces it and becomes a citizen or subject of another government or another sovereign. The alien, whilst domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence." This expression is approved in Radich v. Hutchins, 1877, 95 U. S., 210. And see Yick Wo v. Hoffman, 1885, 118 U. S., 356. These statements, while clear as to the general principle con- trolling, leave, however, unsettled certain other and specific questions. In the first place, the courts have held that the law presumes that all persons who live among us are citizens until the contrary is shown. (State v. Beackmo, 1843, 6 Blackf., 488; Lister v. Wright, 1842, 2 Hill, N. Y., 320.) Consequently where a party was known to be born here, although it is not shown that his father, who was foreign born, was not an alien, and although during the party's infancy his father moved out of the country, still the party was con- sidered a citizen. (Campbell v. Wallace, 1841, 12 N. H., 362.") The same principle was applied under the treaty of peace, in connec- tion with persons who were shown to be domiciled in America before the close of the Revolution with a continuous residence after- wards. (Moore v. Wilson, 1857, 10 Yerger, 406.) And in Moly- neaux v. Seymour, Fanning & Co., 1860, 30 Ga., 440, 441, Lumpkin, J., said: All persons who are found within the limits of government, whether their residence be permanent or temporary, are to be deemed, so far, citizens or sub- jects thereof, as that the right or jurisdiction, civil or criminal, will attach to such persons. Moreover, one alleging the alienage of a party must prove it. State v. Haynes, 1880, 54 la., 169. Another principle has, however, been laid down by the cases that where the original status of a party in an action is shown, this is presumed to continue if there be no evidence of the denaturaliza- " See for an elaborate discussion of the rights of aliens as affected by treaties, Rixner's Succession, 1896, 32 L. R. A., 177, and note. & Of course, under our present statutes, the party having been born in the United States was a citizen by birth, and unless it was shown that he had at the time of coming of age elected to consider himself a subject or citizen of the country to which his father had migrated, he would still be considered an American citizen. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 49 tion or naturalization. In Hauenstein v. Lynham, 1879, 100 U. S., 483, 484, Mr. Justice Swayne expressed this principle thus: There is no proof that he denationalized himself or ceased to be a citizen and subject of Switzerland. His original citizenship is, therefore, to be pre- sumed to have continued." And see also Hogan v. Kurtz, 1876, 94 U. S., 773 ; City of Min- neapolis v. Eeum, 1893, 56 Fed., 576; Bode v. Trimmer, 1890, 82 Cal., 512, 517 ; Miller ?;. Prentice, 1889, 82 Cal., 104 ; id., 575 (more- over the party in this last case swore that he had been naturalized and had lost his papers); Belcher v. Farren,. 1891, 89 Cal., 73; White v. White, 1859, 2 Met. (Ky.), 185. The fact of long-continued residence should, of course, make no difference on this question, and it has been so held. .Jackson v. Wright, 1809, 4 Wend., 75 (ten years' residence). The principle has also been applied where a naturalized or native-born American citizen has denaturalized himself and then has returned to the United States. In such case the courts have held that the party had ■ac- quired an alien citizenship and continued to be an alien although subsequently returning to and residing in this country. (Green's Son v. Salas, 1887, 31 Fed., 106, citing and relying on Hauenstein v. Lynham, supra; Alsberry v. Hawkins, 1839, 9 Dana, 177.) Another interesting case in which the doctrine was applied is State v. Salge, 1865, 1 Nev., 455, 458, where the defendant called in question the alienage of one of the jurors before whom he was to be tried. It appears that the juror in question — was born in the province of Canada, and lived there until he was 24 years of age. He had been told that his father was a citizen of the United States prior to removing to Canada, which was before his (the juror's) birth, and that he never had any knowledge that his father became a citizen of Canada. He also stated that he did not know of which countiy his father claimed citizen- ship ; that his residence and home was in Canada so long as he knew anything about it, and that he (the juror) had never been naturalized as a citizen of the United States. The defendant's challenge of the juror was allowed. Where, as in Miller v. Prentice, supra, a change of allegiance is alleged this, of course, must be established as any other fact. (Jones v. McMasters, 1857, 20 How., 8, 20.) A number of cases have come up involving the principle stated in Jackson v. Wright, supra, the fact of long-continued residence, among which are three that arose just after the Eevolution. In one the alien whose citizenship was being considered had resided in New York as a prisoner of war from September, 1776, to January, 1777. It was urged that this made him a citizen of that Commonwealth, but the court found to the contrary. (Jackson v. White, 1822, 20 Johns., 313.) Two years after, in the second case, the question came up as to whether or not continuous residence after the Eevolution by a soldier of Burgoyne's army made him a citizen, and the court found that it did (Commington v. Springfield, 1824, 2 Pick., 394) ; and a similar result was reached where the party in question had been a deserter from the British army ; see note to Commington v. Spring- is Chief Justice Marshall in Blight v. Rochester, 1822, 7 Wheaton, 535, ex- pressed the same idea, though the citizenship particularly before him seems to have been State and not national. H. Doc. 326, 59-2- .50 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATKIATION, ETC. field. It seems that in neither of these cases was the result reached on an interpretation of the treaty. In People v. Riley, 1860, 15 Cal., 48, the court of that State declared that residence and service as a soldier were not sufficient to confer citizenship. ' The courts have consistently held also that residence in a foreign country by a naturalized American has no effect upon such person's citizenship. The question came up under a rather remarkable state of facts in Young v. Peck, 1839, 21 Wend., 389. It appeared in this case that the party in question was the daughter of one who after her birth became a naturalized American citizen. She was born abroad, in Scotland, in 1769; she lived abroad until 1830. She married in Scotland (probably before she became of age) a British subject with whom she lived until his death, when she came to America. The court held that neither her residence nor her marriage had any effect on her citizenship within the act of 1802. This case was affirmed on appeal to the court of errors in 26 Wend., 613. For an application of the same principle see Ware v. Wisner, 1883, 50 Fed., 310 ; State v. Adams, 1876, 45 Iowa, 99; Beck v. McGillis, 1850, 9 Barb., 35. See also, generally, Brown v. United States, 1869, 5 Court (?f Claims, 571, 575; Murray v. McCarty, 1811, 2 Munf., 393, 397. A number of interesting cases have arisen touching the point whether or not one residing in this country before the Revolution became an alien by either fleeing the country on the outbreak of the war or by taking refuge with the British army. In Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 1830, 3 Pet., 99, 120, Chief Justice Marshall said: The settled doctrine of this country is, that a person born here, who left the country before the Declaration of Independence and never ., returned here, became thereby an alien, and incapable of' taking lands, subsequently, by descent, in this country. Accordingly, it was held that where the defendant, born in the colony of New York in 1760, of Irish parents, went to Ireland to be educated in 1771, was educated and served his apprenticeship there, and returned to the United States in 1795, he was held not to be a citizen. (Hollingsworth v. Duane, 1801, Wall. C. C, 51. And see Trimbles v. Harrison, 1840, 1 B. Mon., 140.) In Coxe v. Gulick, 1829, 5 Halstead (N. J.), 328, an opposite result was reached. The princi- ple itself was well stated in United States v. Gillies, 1815, 1 Pet. C. C, 159, 161, where Washington, J., said: It is true that a man may obtain a foreign domicil which will impress upon him a national character for commercial 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 pejaetual allegiance is due. The principle was somewhat more fully stated in the earlier case of The Venus, 1814, 8 Cranch, 253, 280, where Chief Justice Mar- shall laid down the doctrine as follows : But this national character which a man 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 has resided on his way to another. To use the language of Sir W. Scott, it is an adventitious character gained by residence and which ceases by nonresidence. It no longer adheres to the party from the moment he puts himself in motion, bona fide, to quit the country sine animo revertendi. The Indiam Chief, 3 Rob., 12, 17. The reasonableness of this CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 51 rule can hardly be disputed. Having once acquired a national character, by- residence in a foreign country, he ought to be bound by all the consequences of it until he has thrown it off, either by an actual return to his native country or to that where he was naturalized, or by commencing his removal, bona fide and without an intention of returning. If anything short of actual removal be admitted to work a change in the national character acquired by residence, it seems perfectly reasonable that the evidence of a bona fide intention to remove should be such as to leave no doubt of its sincerity. Mere declarations of such an intention ought never to be relied upon when contradicted, or, at least, rendered doubtful by a continuance of that residence which impressed the character. They may have been made to deceive ; or, if sincerely made, they may never be executed. Even the party himself ought not to be bound by them, because he may afterwards find reason to change his determination, and ought to be permitted to do so. But when he accompanies those declara- tions by acts which speak a language not to be mistaken and can hardly fail to be consummated by actual removal, the strongest evidence is afforded, which the nature of such a case can furnish.® But the courts seem universally to have drawn a clear distinction between citizenship and this sort of domicile. As to the character of the domicile which a merchant acquires who resides and trades in a foreign country, see The Friendschaft, 1818, 3 "Wheat., 13, 52; The Frances, 1814, 8 Cranch, 335. Of course, if, in addition to acquir- ing this domicile, the party also takes an oath of allegiance to the sovereign of the country in which he resides, he is, while residing in that country, a subject of the same, and is not entitled to the protec- tion of his first government and is entitled to the commercial privi- leges of his second. See the Charming Betsy, 1804, 2 Cranch, 64; Stoughton v. Taylor, , 2 Paine C. C, 655, 661. As will be pointed out more fully later, the foreign domicile of an American citizen has no effect upon the citizenship not only of himself, but of his children, and that even though they may be children by an alien mother. Ludlam v. Ludlam, 1860, 31 Barb., 486. The domiciliary status received a number of important adjudica- tions in connection with our Chinese exclusion acts. It seems to have been well settled, under the earlier statutes, that a Chinaman who had acquired a domicile in this country and then went to his native country on a temporary visit stood, on his reseeking entry into this country, on a different basis from one entering for the first: time. In re Ah Ping, 1885, 23 Fed., 329 ; Lau Ow Bew v. United States, 1892, 144 U. S., 47. But the more stringent statutes passed since that time have been interpreted to mean that this right may be withdrawn by Congress. See Chinese Exclusion case, 1888, 130 U. S., 581; L'em Moon Sing v. United States, 1895, 158 U S., 538; In re Tom Mun, 1888, 47 Fed., 722; In re Chew Heong (1884), 10 Sawy., 361. That a party entering this country after having ac- quired a previous domicile stood on a different footing from a new " The question of domicile thus raised can not be covered in this report. It seems sometimes to have been treated as if it were citizenship. (See the remarks of Story, J., in The Dos Hemanos, 1817, 2 Wheat, 78, 96, in which he used this language : " In respect to the domicil of Mr. Green there is certainly much reason to doubt if it would be sufficient to protect him, even if he could show himself at the time of the capture a citizen of Carthagena, for if upon his return to New Orleans after the war he acquired a domicil there (of which the circum- stances of his becoming the owner of a privateer in that port affords a strong presumption) he became a redintegrated American citizen, and he could not by an emigration afterwards, flagrante bello, acquire a neutral character so as to separate himself from that of his native country." &2 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. emigrant was also decided in the case of In re Pangara, 1892, 51 Fed., 275. Cases^ have also held that the domicile of the origin is not lost with long residence abroad, even where there is doubt that the party had any fixed intention of returning. White v. Brown, 1848, 1 Wall. -Jr., 217. But see Ex Parte Blumer, 1865, 27 Tex., 734. PART I.— CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH. Chapter I. — Children born within the territory of the United States. Section 1. — Of inhabitants not aliens. A. Indians. — In discussing the question of citizenship of the In- dians, it seems advisable first to treat somewhat at length of their status generally and of their amenability to Federal and State law, because their position seems to be entirely unique, and unless this is in mind the ruling of the courts on matters of pure citizenship seem out of harmony with the general law on this subject. The Constitution of the United States contains two references to Indians. Article I, section 2, in providing for the distribution of Representatives and direct taxes, excludes " Indians not taxed." Ar- ticle I, section 8, provides that Congress should have power to regu- late commerce a with the Indian tribes." But in neither place is the relationship which is to exist between the Indians and the Govern- ment of the United States or the Indians and the government of the States defined. From the earliest periods our Government has to a greater or less extent treated them as separate nations, and treaties have been the normal method of regulating our relationships with them. The question of the status of the Indians was brought before our Supreme Court at a comparatively early date in the great case of the Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831, 5 Pet., 1. The immediate ques- , tion to be determined was whether or not the Cherokee Nation was a foreign state in the sense which that term is used in that clause of the Constitution, Article III, section 2, which provides that the judi- cial power shall extend to controversies between a State and foreign states. The opinion was delivered by Marshall, Chief Justice, in the course of which he used the following language : Is the Cherokee Nation a foreign state, in the sense in which that term is used in the Constitution? The counsel for the plaintiffs have maintained the affirmative of this proposition with great earnestness and ability. So much of the argument as was intended to prove the- character of the Cherokees as a state, as a distinct political society, separated from others, capable of manag- ing its own affairs and governing itself, has, in the opinion of a majority of the judges, been completely successful. They have been uniformly treated as a state from the settlement of our country. The numerous treaties made with them by the United States recognize them as a people capable of maintaining the relations of peace and war, of being responsible in their political character for any violation of their engagements, or for any aggression committed on the citizens of the United States by any individual of their community. Laws have been enacted in the spirit of these treaties. The acts of our Government plainly recognize the Cherokee Nation as a state, and the courts are bound by those acts. A question of much more difficulty remains. Do the Cherokees constitute a foreign state in the sense of the Constitution? The counsel have shown con- rlusively that they are not a State of the Union, and have insisted that, indi- CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 53 vidually, they are aliens, not owing allegiance to the United States. An aggre- gate of aliens composing a state must, they say, be a foreign state ; each indi- vidual being foreign, the whole must be foreign. This argument is imposing, but we must examine it more closely before we yield to it. The condition of the Indians in relation to the United States is, perhaps, unlike that of any other two people in existence. In general, nations not owing a common allegiance are foreign to each other. The term foreign nation is with strict propriety applicable by either to the other. But the rela- tion of the Indians to the United States is marked by peculiar and cardinal dis- tinctions which exist nowhere else. The Indian Territory is admitted to com- pose a part of the United States. In all our maps, geographical treatises, histories, and laws it is so considered. In all our intercourse with foreign nations, in our commercial regulations, in any attempt at intercourse between Indians and foreign nations, they are considered as within the jurisdictional limits of the United States, subject to many of those restraints which are imposed upon our own citizens. They acknowledge themselves, in their treaties,, to be under the protection of the United States ; they admit that the United States shall have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the trade with them, and managing all their affairs as they think proper ; and the Cherokees in par- ticular were allowed by the treaty of Hopewell, which preceded the Constitution, " To send a deputy of their choice, whenever they think fit, to Congress." Treaties were made with some tribes by the State of New York under a then unsettled construction of the confederation, by which they ceded all their lands to that State, taking back a limited grant to themselves, in which they admit their dependence. Though the Indians are acknowledged to have an unquestionable, and heretofore unquestioned, right to the lands they occupy, until that right shall be extinguished by a voluntary cession to our Government, yet it may well be doubted whether those tribes which reside within the acknowledged boundaries of the United States can with strict accuracy be denominated foreign nations. They may more correctly, perhaps, be denomi- nated domestic dependent nations. They occupy a territory to which we assert a title independent of their will, which must take effect in point of possession when their right of possession ceases. Meanwhile they are in a state of pupil- age; their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guar- dian. They look to our Government for protection ; rely upon its kindness and its power ; appeal to it for relief to their wants, and address the President as their great father. They and their country are considered by foreign nations, as well as by ourselves, as being so completely under the sovereignty and domin- ion of the United States that any attempt to acquire their lands or to form a political connection with them would be considered by all as an invasion of our territory and an act of hostility. These considerations go far to support the opinion that the framers of our Constitution had not the Indian tribes in view when they opened the courts of the Union to controversies between a State or the citizens thereof and foreign states, (<») "The Indian tribes are distinct, independent political communities, retaining the right of self-government, subject to the protecting power of the United States. Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet, 515. They are not regarded as the owners of the territories which they respectively occupy. It is considered as vacant and unoccupied land belonging to the United States. United States v. Rogers, 4 How., 567. But their hunting grounds are as much in their actual possession. as the cleared fields of the whites, and their right to its exclusive enjoyments in their own way and for their own purposes, is as much respected, until they abandon them, make a cession to the Government, or an authorized sale to- individuals. Mitchell v. United States, 9 Pet, 746. Subject to this, right of possession, the ultimate fee is in the Government. They can not cut timber merely for purpose of sale, though if the cutting of timber be merely incidental to the improvement of their land they may dispose of it at their pleasure. United States v. Cook, 19 Wall., 591. A grant of alternate sections of land for railroad purposes only operates on public land owned absolutely by the United States, not to such as is set apart for the use of an Indian tribe under a treatv. Railroad Co. v. United States, 92 U. S., 733. The Pueblo Indians of New Mex- ico, however, occupy a different position. By the plan of Iguala they became citi- zens of Mexico, and by the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo citizens of the United States and of right entitled to all the privileges of citizens. United States r. Lucero, 1 New Mexico, 422. The removal of an Indian tribe can only be made by the authority and under the care of the General Government. Fellows v. Blacksmith, 19 How., 366 ; s. c. 7 N. Y., 401. Brightly's note. 54 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. The question came before Chief Justice Marshall a second time in Worcester v. Georgia, 1832, 6 Peters, 515, in which it was to be decided whether or not the plaintiff in error, Worcester, a missionary labor- ing among the Cherokee Indians with the consent of the tribe and with the consent of the United States, might be lawfully removed from the Cherokee country by Georgia authorities acting under a Georgia law. In holding that such an individual could not be so removed the learned Chief Justice again defined the status of the Indian tribes in substantially the same terms. Since this time the question has been frequently before other courts, and they have adopted and acted upon this view. See particularly Ex parte Kenyon, 1878, 5 Dill., 385; Ex parte Keynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 304, and see also The Kansas Indians, 1866, 5 Wall., 737; New York Indians, id., 761 ; Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1856, 19 How., 403 ; Elk v. Wilkins, 1884, 112 U. S., 94.» Following out to its logical conclusion their ruling that the Indian nations were not for purposes of jurisdiction under the Federal Con- stitution foreign nations, the courts have uniformly and consistently held that for purposes of jurisdiction they were not aliens either. See statement of Marshall, C. J., in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, supra ; and the cases of Mackey v. Cox, 1855, 18 How., 100, 104 (ques- tion as to the right of an administrator appointed in the Cherokee Nation to maintain a suit in the courts of the District of Columbia) ; Karrahoo v. Adams, 1870, 1 Dill., 344 (a suit in a Federal circuit court) ; Hunt v. State, 1866, 4 Kans., 60; Ex parte Eeynolds, supra. Where, however, the Indian has forsaken his tribal relations and adopted civilized ways, it has been said he is a citizen for purposes of jurisdiction; ex parte Kenyon, supra; and see Hatch v. Ferguson, 1893, 57 Fed., 959. Moreover, it seems that whatever his habits of life, he will be regarded as a person within the meaning of the habeas corpus acts; United States v. Crook, 1879, 5 Dill., 453; In re Sah Quah, 1886, 31 Fed., 327. On the other hand, there runs through the reports the idea that " it is the right and duty of the Government itself to maintain such suits as may be necessary for the protection of the rights of the Indians ; " In re Celestine, 1902, 114 Fed., 551. 6 The amenability of the Indians to our laws must be viewed from the standpoint of both Federal and State law ; and it must be said at the outset that for definite information in a particular case as to the rights both of the Government and of the Indians, reference must be made to the individual treaties with the tribe in question or to the general 'statutes. However, the powers which have been exercised by the two governments under treaty rights, reserved and extended, will be suggested by the cases cited below. First. The Federal law. Cause may arise to apply the Federal laws either in Indian country or in a State or Territory, either within a Under a statute which provides " that the eastern band of Cherokee Indians, by that name and style, be, and they are hereby, authorized to institute and carry on a suit or suits in law or equity," it was sought to have this band con- sidered a corporation. The court expressed the opinion that the statute either recognized or conferred a corporate capacity in the Indians as a collective tribe or body. In United States v. Boyd, 1897, 83 Fed., 547, the same suggestion was made, but was not approved. » And see statement to the effect that the United States acts as a guardian and trustee for the Indians. U. S. v. Winans, 1896, 73 Fed., 72. CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATBIATION, ETC. 55 or without the limits of a reservation. The term " Indian country " has been defined as " country belonging to the Indians, occupied 'by them, and to which the Government recognized them as having some kind of title or right; " United States v. Leathers, 1879, 6 Sawy., 17, 23, commenting on the statute of July 22, 1790 (1 Stat., 137). Into this country it has been held the internal-revenue laws run, Cherokee Tobacco, 1870, 11 Wall., 616 [see United States v. Tobacco Factory, 1 Dill., 264] ; likewise the laws governing trade with the Indians, arid that for this purpose a reservation in the State of Nevada is Indian country, United States v. Leathers, supra ; so as to laws for punish- ments of murder between white men, United States v. Rogers, 1846, 4 How., 567 ; unless the Indian territory is within the limits of one of the States, United States v. Bailey, 1834, 1 McLean, 234, discussed in United States v. Yellow Sun, 1870, 1 Dill., 271, 279; and a State court does, in such a case, have jurisdiction, United States v. Ward, 1863, McCahon, 199; unless the crime is committed between two Indians, United States v. Kagama, 1886, 118 U. S., 375. It is immaterial as to Federal jurisdiction in cases of murder that one of the parties is an Indian by adoption, because in the statutes excepting such Indian offenders from jurisdiction the term " In- dian " is said to be descriptive of a race. (Westmoreland v. United States, 1895, 155 U. S., 545.) The constitutional power of Congress to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes extends over Indians in territory once part of a reservation, but now a county of a State (United States v. Forty-Three Gallons of Whisky, 1876, 93 U. S., 188) ; and, indeed, such laws are said to apply to the Indian wher- ever he is found, without reference to State control. (United States v. Holliday, 1865, 3 Wall., 407, followed in United States v. Osborn, 1880, 2 Fed., 58; see also United States v. Osborn, 1880, 6 Sawy., 406; approved in United States v. Boyd, supra, to the same effect.) The general theory underlying this ruling is well stated in United States v. Forty-Three Gallons of Whisky, supra. In Kansas Indi- ans, 1866, 5 Wall., 737, and New York Indians, id., 761, it was de- clared that their treaty rights protected land held in severalty by them although within the territorial limits of the respective States. Moreover, it seems sufficiently clear that the Central Government may authorize Territorial courts to take jurisdiction of crimes, in- cluding murder, when committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, although the precise place where the crime was com- mitted is not alleged. (Gon-Shay-Ee, Petitioner, 1889, 130 U. S., 343.) But an earlier case held, under another statute, that juris- diction in a civil case involving the title to real estate was not vested in such a court. (Langford v. Monteith, 1880, 102 U. S., 145.) The case of In re Sah Quah (1886), 31 Fed., 327, is of considerable interest and importance. An Alaskan Indian, held as a slave and chattel by other Indians, sought to regain his freedom. The re- spondent set up that Alaska was essentially Indian country, that the laws of the Indians therefore controlled Indian relationships, the Government having therefore no right to interfere, and that slavery had from time immemorial been recognized amongst them. But the court, examining the history of the Government's relationships with the Indians, concluded that they were not tribes, but patriarchal bodies; that their independent existence as tribes had never been recognized ; and that the Congressional statute of 1885 giving to the 56 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. Federal courts jurisdiction of specified offenses extended over the Indians in Alaska, and therefore the Indians were amenable to Fed- eral laws, and slavery could not be tolerated. In the course of his opinion he said that, though dependent upon and subject to our laws, " they are not citizens within the full meaning of that term." Second. The State law. It is well settled that in proper cases a State may extend its jurisdiction over Indians. In the case of George Peters, 1801, 2 Johns. Cas., 344, an Indian immigrant from New England was tried for the murder of his wife, the court holding him subject to its jurisdiction (the defendant having aban- doned his tribal relations), the court expressly distinguishing this from a case where the Indian accused was a member of a tribe per- mitted to govern its own internal affairs. In 1810 a New York court interfered to control the disposition of land by an Indian, the land having been given to him for services in the Revolution. (Jack- son v. Wood, 1810, 7 Johns., 290; and for other cases see reporter's notes to the principal case.) In Jackson v. Goodall (1822, 20 Johns., 188) the court declared in general terms that Indians were subject to the jurisdiction of State tribunals (s. c. on appeal, id., (393). But these cases were all of an exceptional character. See also Murray v. Wooden, 1837, 17 Wend., 531 (approving Goodall v. Jackson), in which a deed executed by an individual Indian was said not to be within the statute prohibiting grants of land by Indians, unless by treaty of convention entered into pursuant to Constitution of United States. A State may provide that no one shall settle on Indian lands, and one so settling when ejected is deprived of no property within the meaning of treaties or acts of Congress. (State v. Dibble, 1858, 21 How., 366; but compare Worcester v. Georgia, supra.) States may also exercise power over small isolated reservations, " mixed up with and surrounded by a white population, which carries on with them almost every kind of commerce incident to their condition ; " the Federal jurisdiction ceases, it being impracticable to enforce Federal laws. ( United States v. Cisna, 1835, 1 McLean, 25 1.) States may not, however, tax Indian lands within their borders New York and Kansas Indians, supra; but see under special conditions Pen- nock v. Commissioners, 1880, 103 U. S., 44), nor a mercantile busi- ness (State v. Ross, 1834, 7 Yerg., 64). It seems also to be suffi- ciently clear that State courts have jurisdiction over offenses com- mitted by Indians off the reservation and within its territorial limits. Such was the effect of the decision in People v. Antonio, 1865, 27 Cal., 404 (a case of punishment for larceny) ; Hunt v. State, 1866, 4 Kans., 60, and United States v. Yellow Sun, 1870, 1 Dill., 271 (punishment in a State court for murder committed by tin Indian off the reservation) . And see the case of Peters, supra. In Hicks v. Ewhartonah, 1866, 21 Ark., 106, and Taylor v. Drew, id., 485, the State court affirmed its jurisdiction over contracts en- tered into by Indians. But see, in this respect, Hastings v. Farmer, 1850, 4 N. Y, 293, where an opposite result was reached under a State statute. This brief survey of the status of Indians, and of the State and Federal jurisdiction over them, is sufficient to show the complexity of the Indian problem and the difficulties to be expected in meeting questions of citizenship. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 57 While, as already shown, the courts have uniformly declared that Indians are not aliens, they have just as uniformly held that they are not citizens, notwithstanding birth within the territorial limits of the United States. In United States v. Shanks, 1870, 15 Minn., 369, 380, the court held that one Hole in the Day, an Indian of unmixed blood, chief of the Chippewas, though holding land in fee from the Government, and though he had adopted ways of civilized life, had yet not been a citizen of the United States, and administration of his estate could not be granted in a State court. In the course of his opinion the judge said : The Indians within our territory have always been considered and recog- nized by the United States as distinct political communities, and so far as is essential to constitute them separate nations the rights of sovereignty have been conceded to them. Worcester v. The State of Georgia, 6 Pet, 515. The In- testate, Indian chief Hole in the Day, therefore, was not a citizen of the State of Minnesota nor of the United States, but belonged to a separate nation, upon whom the laws of the State beyond the territorial limits of the State could have no force; and the Indian reservation, which was in his occupaney, and upon which he resided, was not embraced within the civil jurisdiction of the State. The court further remarked that if they were obliged, they might find a jurisdiction of the matter in the United States courts. In another case it was held that an Indian who had left the reser- vation with the consent of the agent and had for ten years lived off the reservation with a white family as a domestic was not a citizen; and that though he claimed to be a voter in the State of Oregon- United States v. Osborne, 1880, 6 Sawy., 406, approved in United States v. Boyd, 1897, 83 Fed., 547. In discussing the question whether or not an Indian was within the language of the fourteenth amendment, providing that " all 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," the court said : " But the Indian tribes in the United States, or the members thereof, are not born ' subject to the jurisdiction ' of the United States ; " and he had previously remarked : " The Indians are not a portion of the political community called the ' people of the United States,' and although not foreign nations or persons, they have always been regarded and treated as distinct and independent political communities." One of the most extreme cases is that of Elkv. Wilkins, 1884, 112 U. S., 94, 100, where the plaintiff, an Indian, who had separated himself from his tribe, settled down and became a bona fide resident of the State of Nebraska, in the city of Omaha, and had completely surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the United States, sought to compel the defendant to register him as a qualified voter. But the Supreme Court, in an elaborately consid- ered opinion, held that he was not a citizen of the United States- Mr. Justice Gray, in delivering the opinion of the court, said : The alien and dependent condition of the members of the Indian tribes could not be put off at their own will without the action or assent of the United States. They were never deemed citizens of the United States, except under explicit provisions of treaty or statute to that effect, either declaring a certain tribe, or such members of it as chose to remain behind on the removal of the tribe westward, to be citizens, or authorizing individuals of particular tribes to become citizens on application to a court of the United States for naturali- zation, and satisfactory proof of fitness for civilized life. 58 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. Upon the direct point whether or not an Indian was entitled to citizenship within the fourteenth amendment, on the ground that he was born within the United States, Mr. Justice Gray expressed him- self thus : Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more " born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," Within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or ether' public ministers of foreign nations. Nor, usually, are the Indians in a better position with reference to the States. In Jackson v. Goodall, 1822, 20 Johns., 187, it was held that certain of the Oneida Indians were citizens of the State, owing allegiance to the State government, but on a writ of error to the Su- preme Court, 20 Johns., 693, this holding was overruled, it being declared that the Indians within the State were not citizens. In State v. Managers, 1829, 1 Bailey, 215, citizenship was denied to an Indian admitted to be " a man of excellent character * * * use- ful to the country both in a military and civil capacity." The same principle was well settled in Massachusetts, as has been repeatedly recognized by their courts (Danzell v. Webquish, 1871, 102 Mass., 133) , though the disability has more recently been removed by statute (Cooms, petitioner, 1879, 127 Mass., 278; Pells v. Webquish, 1880, 129 Mass., 469). Other States have taken the same attitude (Hilgers v. Quinney, 1881, 51 Wis., 62). Citizenship has, however, been frequently conferred upon Indians and Indian tribes by treaty. In the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo it was provided that Mexicans resident in the territory transferred from Mexico to the United States should become citizens of the United States. In accordance with this provision it has been held that Pueblo Indians who were Mexicans under the Mexican law at that time became citizens of the United States (United States v. Lucero, 1879, 1 New Mexico, 422 ; United States v. Santistevan, 1874, 1 New Mexico, 583 ; United States v. Joseph, 1876, 94 U. S., 614, approving United States v. Santistevan; United States v. Eitchie, 1854, 58 U. S., 524) . And numerous special statutes have conferred the rights of citizenship in particular instances. See the more important ones collected in Elk v. Wilkins, 1884, 112 U. S., 94, and the full collection in Indian Affairs, Laws and Treaties, two volumes, 1903. A general act of Congress approved February 8, 1887, known as the Dawes bill, provided for the allotment of land to Indians adopt- ing civilized life, with the further provision that each allottee born within the territorial limits of the United States — who has voluntarily taken up, within said limits, his residence separate and apart from any tribe of Indians therein, and has adopted the habits of civilized life, is hereby declared to be a citizen of the United States. (24 Stat L , pp. 388-390.) This statute has been held to have no application to tribes as such, only to the individuals of the tribes. United States v. Boyd, 1896, 83 Fed., 547. But it has been repeatedly held to make citizens of the United States all Indians who bring themselves within its terms. See State v. Denoyer, 1897, 6 N. Dak., 566 ; Ross v. Eells, 1893, 56 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 59 Fed., 855; United States v. Kopp, 1901, 110 Fed., 160; In re Celestine, 1902, 114 Fed., 541. Special treaties have sometimes contained a similar provision, e. g., the treaty of New Echota, which provided that Indians of the Cherokee tribe who remained in the East might become citizens on abandoning their tribe and adopting civilized methods of life. Cherokee Trust Funds, 1855, 117 U. S., 289, com- menting on United States v. Boyd, supra," The status of the Indian woman who marries an American citizen seems not often to have been before the court. In Hatch v. Ferguson, 1893, 57 Fed., 959, the court decided that an Indian woman born within the United States, widow of a citizen of the United States, was entitled to prosecute a suit in the Federal court for the State of Oregon against citizens of the State of Washington. The decision is not squarely in point, however, since, under the Dawes bill of 1888, it would, seem she might have taken on citizenship by forsaking her tribal relations, as she had done, and in that event, of course, the fact of marriage to a citizen was immaterial. The correct solution of this problem depends, seemingly, first, on the construction of particular treaties, and, second, on the residence of the parties after marriage. If after marriage the parties reside in the Indian country, the hus- band subjecting himself to the Indian laws, it seems to be the general rule that in such case the husband may become an adopted Indian, and, of course, under these circumstances, the children will be In- dians, not citizens. (See United States z\ Rogers, and cases cited, infra.) If, however, the wife severs her tribal relations and lives with her husband in a civilized community, adopting civilized habits of life, the children of such a marriage should, under the usual rules, be citizens, not Indians. In Ex parte Reynolds, supra, the question was discussed at some length, and the court, while stating that as between a freeman and a slave the principle of the Roman civil law, expressed in the maxim partus sequitur ventrem, was applied, and so the offspring be a slave, yet a different rule was applied between freemen. He said : But by the common law this rule is reversed with regard to the offspring of free persons. Their offspring follows the condition of the father, and the rule partus sequitur patrem prevails in determining their status. This is the uni- versal maxim of the common law with regard to freemen — as old as the common ' law or even as the Roman civil law, and as well settled as the rule partus sequitur ventrem — the one being a rule fixing the status of freemen ; the other being a rule defining the ownership of property — the one applicable to different political communities or states, whose citizens are in the enjoyment of the civil rights possessed by people in a state of freedom ; the other defining the condi- tion of the offspring which had been tainted by the bondage of the mother. No other rules than the ones above enumerated ever did prevail in this or any other civilized country. * * * These Indians are freemen. In accordance with the principles here announced, the court held that a woman whose paternal grandfather was a white man " living in the State of Mississippi and not with an Indian tribe, a citizen of the State of Mississippi and of the United States," was herself a citizen, since her father before her had been one. A result similar in «■ It is of interest to note that the tenure by which such land is held from the Government is not changed to a fee simple by the Indian becoming a citizen- United States v. Flournoy, etc., Co., 1896, 71 Fed., 576 — and it may be added that it has been held that holding land in fee simple does not make an Indian p citizen. — United States v. Shanks, supra. 60 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. effect, though not fully to the point, was reached in the earlier case of Davis v. Hall, 1818, 1 Nott & McCord, 292, the court there holding that the son of a white father and Indian mother might inherit lands from the father, although the son was born while his father and mother resided with the Indian tribe. The result reached in this case seems entirely in accord with the rules usually controlling in cases of marriage between citizens of the United States and those not citizens." (See section Citizenship by marriage, infra.) While the courts have generally been a unit in following Elk v. Wilkins, supra, to the effect that national citizenship may not be acquired by an Indian merely forsaking his tribal connections and adopting civilized methods and habits, a different result with refer- ence to citizenship in a State was reached in Hilgers v. Quinney, 1881, 51 Wis., 62, where the court held, pursuant to certain provisions in the State constitution, that a person of Indian descent who -had abandoned his tribe was a citizen of the State of Wisconsin "by every test known to our constitution and laws." The question in the United States courts, as indicated above, has usually been answered the other way. The courts have, however, always recognized the right of an Indian to forsake his tribe. In United States v. Crook, 1879, 5 Dill., 453, 464, the question arose as to whether or not a part of the tribe of Ponca Indians which, having been removed to Indian Territory, had for- saken that place and returned to their former home and taken up a residence with a kindred tribe could be arrested at the instance of the Government and returned to Indian Territory. In passing upon a writ of habeas corpus sued out by these Indians, the court made the following remarks : What is here stated in this connection is mainly for the purpose of showing that the relators did all they could to separate themselves from their tribe and to sever their tribal relations, for the purpose of becoming self-sustaining and living without support from the Government. This being so, it presents the question as to whether or not an Indian can withdraw from his tribe, sever his tribal relations therewith, and terminate his allegiance thereto, for the purpose of making an independent living and adopting our own civilization. If Indian tribes are to be regarded and treated as separate but dependent nations, there can be no serious difficulty about the question. If they are not to be regarded and treated as separate, dependent nations, then no allegiance is owing from an individual Indian to his tribe, and he could, therefore, with- draw therefrom at any time. The question of expatriation has engaged the attention of our Government from the time of its very foundation. Many heated discussions have been carried on between our own and foreign govern- ments on this great question, until diplomacy has triumphantly secured the right to every person found within our jurisdiction. • This right has always been claimed and admitted by our Government, and it is now no longer an open question. It can make but little difference, then, whether we accord to the Indian tribes a national character or not, as in either case I think the individual Indian possesses the clear and God-given right to withdraw from his tribe and forever live away from it as though it had no further existence. If the right of expatriation was open to doubt in this country down to the year 1868, cer- tainly since that time no sort of question as to the right can now exist. And see Ex parte Kenyon, 1878, 5 Dill., 385, holding that an adopted Indian may sever tribal relations ; Pennock v. Commission- ers, 1880, 102 U. S., 44, and cases cited under the discussions as to the « The matter has been settled, however, by the Congressional act of 1888, 25 Stat. L„ ch. 818. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 61 authority of United States and State governments over Indians and Indian tribes, supra. As already stated, certain treaties between the United States and Indian tribes have provided that citizens marrying Indian wives might be adopted into the Indian tribes and become citizens thereof. Here, again, the question seems to depend primarily upon particular treaties, which must in each case be consulted The right of Ameri- can citizens under such treaties to join the Indian nations and of the Indian nations to adopt such as members of their tribe has been recognized in a number of cases. - One of the best-known cases in the law upon this question is that of United States e. Eogers, 1846, 4 How., 566, in which the question was whether or not a white man who had married an Indian squaw and had been adopted into the Chero- kee tribe could be tried for the murder of another white man simi- larly adopted, in the courts of the United States, or whether or not he came within a clause in the treaty providing that " crimes committed by one Indian against the person or property of another Indian " should be punished according to the Cherokee laws. The opinion was delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Taney, who stated his opinion as follows: We think it very clear that a white man who at mature age is adopted in an Indian tribe does not thereby become an Indian, and was not intended to be embraced in the exception above mentioned. He may by such adoption be- come entitled to certain privileges in the tribe and make himself amenable to their laws and usages. Yet he is not an Indian, and the exception is con- fined to those who by the usages and customs of the Indians are regarded as be- longing to their race. It does not speak of members of a tribe, but of the race generally, of the family of Indians ; and it intended to leave them both, as regarded their own tribe and other tribes also, to be governed by Indian usages and customs. And it would perhaps be found difficult to preserve peace among them if white men of every description might at pleasure settle among them, and by procuring an adoption by one of the tribes throw off all responsibility to the laws of the United States and claim to be treated by the Government and its officers as if they were Indians born. Ex parte Kenyon, 1878 (5 Dill., 385), presented another question of some considerable interest. In that case Kenyon, a citizen of the United States, had been adopted into the Cherokee. Nation. He had married an Indian woman and by her reared a family. On her death he severed his connection with the tribe and moved from the Indian country into the State of Kansas. Later he was indicted for the larceny of a mare belonging to his wife, which he had taken with him when he emigrated to Kansas. The question presented was whether or not his status as an Indian had changed by his abandon- ing his tribal relations and whether his national citizenship revived. The court held that he was a citizen of the United States and subject to the laws of the State of Kansas, and therefore that a writ of habeas corpus would run to a court of the Cherokee Nation which had taken jurisdiction of the offense and had sentenced him to im- prisonment in the Cherokee penitentiary. This decision is in accord with the statement of Taney in United States v. Eogers, supra, who remarked : Whatever obligations the prisoner may have taken upon himself by becoming a Cherokee by adoption, his responsibility to the laws of the United States remained unchanged and undiminished. 62 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. In RofF v. Burney, 189G (168 U. S., 218, 222), Mr. Justice Brewer, in delivering the opinion of the court, quoted with approval the above remark of Mr. Chief Justice Taney, stating that — the mere (act that a citizen of the United States has become a member ot an Indian tribe by adoption may not necessarily cancel his citizenship. This seems to be the effect of the holding in Ex parte Eeynolds, supra. In other words, we seem to have in such cases as these what is usually considered a dual citizenship, if membership in an Indian tribe may be considered citizenship. Where Indians are permitted to adopt persons into their tribe, itds determined that they also have power after such adoption to withdraw their citizenship from the adopted party. To this point was the decision in Eoff v. Burney, supra. B. Africans. — The status of free, native-born negroes before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment is no longer of practical im- portance so far as the negro is concerned, but the subject is too im- portant a one to be omitted without any consideration at all, and it is conceived that a brief survey of the more important cases bearing on that topic will not be wholly without some suggestive value in so far as they throw light upon questions concerning the status of the inhabitants of the Philippines and Porto Rico. Accordingly, a number of cases are outlined below, but it should be said that the cases dealing with the enforcement of the fugitive slave laws have been purposely omitted from consideration. It seems unnecessary to cite cases for the proposition that slaves were not citizens, since this is sufficiently established by the whole history of the country and the expressions in the Constitution itself. As to free negroes, there are two lines of authority directly in con- flict with a third line midway between. First. Decisions holding that free negroes were citizens. Cases adjudicated both before and since the civil war have declared that free negroes were citizens. One of the earliest cases to this point is State v. Manuel, 1838, 3 Dev. & Bat., 20, 24, in which the court announced the doctrine in the following language : According to the laws of this State all human beings within it who are not slaves fall within one of two classes. Whatever distinctions may have existed in the Roman law between citizens and free inhabitants, they are unknown to our institutions. Before our Revolution all free persons born within the do- minions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects ; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. Slavery did not exist in England, but it did exist in the British colonies. Slaves were not, in legal parlance, persons, but property. The moment the incapacity — or disqualification of color — was removed they became persons, and were then either British subjects or not British subjects, according as they were or were not born within the allegiance of the British King. Upon the Revolution no . other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European king to a free and sov- ereign State. Slaves remained slaves. British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen. Foreigners, until made members of the State, continued aliens. Slaves manumitted here became freemen ; and, therefore, if born within North Carolina are citizens of North Carolina, and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. A few only of the prin- cipal objections which have been urged against this view of what we considered the legal doctrine will be noticed. It has been said that by the Constitution of the United States the power of naturalization has been conferred exclusively upon Congress, and therefore it can not be competent for any State by its municipal regulations to make a citizen. But what is naturalization? It is CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 63 the removal of the disabilities of alienage. Emancipation is the' removal of the incapacity of slavery. The latter depends wholly upon the internal regulations of the State ; the former belongs to the Government of the United States. It would be a dangerous mistake to confound them. The court then pointed out that under their State constitution every freeman who had arrived at the age of 21 and paid a publie tax, without regard to color, " claimed and exercised the franchise until it was taken from freemen of color a few years since by our amended constitution." It would thus seem that the ratification of the constitution in North Carolina may have been due in part to the votes of free negroes. This is one of the very strongest opinions holding that free negroes are citizens." The next case in point of time is that of Tannis v. Doe, 1852, 21 Ala., 449, which held that free negro residents of Florida at the time for our purchase became, by virtue of the wording to the treaty, citizens of the United States. On the general question of citizen- ship of free negroes, of course, this case is of little value. The next expression on the subject was given in 1857, when the justices of the supreme judicial court of Maine, in answer to an in- terrogatory addressed to them by the order of the senate (State), under date of March 26, 1857, declared that free negroes of the age of 21 years and upward were, under the laws of Maine, " electors for governor, senators, and representatives." While it will be seen that the decision is not, as expressed, squarely to the point that free negroes are citizens, the decision really went to that extent, since their constitution required that all electors should be male citizens of the United States. Later, in 1865, the general assembly of Connecticut — adopted a resolution requesting the judges of the supreme court to convene and give their opinion upon the question " whether a negro is or is not a citizen of the United States within the meaning of that phrase as used in the amendment to the constitution of the State adopted in October, 1845." The court declared (Chief Justice Hinman not expressing an opinion) — that, in their opinion, a free colored person born in this State is a citizen of the State and of the United States.* In 1866 the matter came up before a United States circuit court in United States v. Rhodes, 1866, 1 Abb. U. S., 28, and the court, after a very elaborate discussion of the cases, concluded that, not- withstanding the Dred Scott case, free colored persons had always been entitled to be regarded as citizens of the United States. In the same year the question was considered in an Indiana court, in Smith v. Moody, 1866, 26 Ind., 299. It is not clear whether the court had in mind the condition of negroes after the fourteenth amendment only. The conclusion was reached, however, that free negroes were citizens. o It is not clear from the court's language whether or not he considered them merely citizens of the State or citizens of the United States, but the lat- ter seems to have been within his view. The case of Fable v. Fable, 1835, 2 Hill Eq. (S. C), 378, contains an elab- orate consideration, both by counsel and court, on the question of the status of slaves. & See note to this opinion explaining the earlier case of Crandall v. State, 10 Conn., 339, In which Daggett, chief justice, in charging the jury, expressed a contrary view. 64 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. These are the most important cases in which the question has come tip, in only one of which prior to the civil war, State v. Manuel, was there a square decision on a suit pending before the court, that free negroes were citizens. Second. Decisions holding that free negroes were not citizens. One of the earliest cases on this point is that of Amey v. Smith, 1822, 1 Litt. (Ky.), 326. The question was brought up through an action of trespass, assault and battery, and false imprisonment, sued out by the plaintiff, a woman of color, against the defendant. The case turned, among other things, on the point whether or not the plaintiff was a citizen, the court holding that she was not. A distinction was made between the words " citizen " and " subject," the former being made the narrower term. In the course of his opinion the court said : Prior to the adoption of the Federal Constitution the States had a right of making citizens of any persons they pleased, but as the Constitution does not authorize any but white persons to become citizens of the United States it furnishes a presumption that none others were citizens at the time of its adop- tion. The case of Crandall v. State, 1834, 10 Conn., 339, in which Daggett, C. J., charged the jury to the effect that a free negro was not a citizen, is the next case in point of time. In 1838 a Tennessee court gave an opinion upon the matter in State v. Claiborne, 1838, 1 Meigs (Tenn.), 331, in which, after exam- ining the question and declaring that under the laws of Tennessee free negroes had few privileges that were common to the white citi- zens of the State, it used the following language : How can it be said that he enjoys all the privileges of citizens when he is scarcely allowed a single right in common with the mass of the citizens of the State? It can not be; and therefore either the free negro is not a citizen in the sense of the Constitution, or, if a citizen, he is entitled to " all the privi- leges and immunities " of the most favored class of ctizens. But this latter consequence will be contended for by no one. It must then follow that they are not citizens. In Pendleton v. State, 1846, 6 Ark., 509, the plaintiff had been indicted under a local statute which prohibited " the emigration and settlement of free negroes, or free persons of color, into this State." The plaintiff pleaded the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States, which provides " that citizens of one State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States." After quoting the remarks of the court in Amey v. Smith, supra, the judge continued : If citizens in a full and constitutional sense, why were they not permitted to participate in its formation? They certainly were not. The Constitution was the work of the white race ; the Government, for which it provides, and of which it Is the fundamental law, is in their hands and under their control ; and it could not have been intended to place a different race of people in all things upon terms of equality with themselves. Indeed, if such had been the desire, its utter impracticability is too evident to admit of doubt. The two races, differing as they do in complexion, habits, conformation, and intellectual en- dowments, could not nor ever will live together upon terms of social or political equality. A higher than human power has so ordered It, and a greater than human agency must change the decree. Those who framed the Constitu- tion were aware of this, and hence their intention to exclude them as citizens within the meaning of the clause to which we have referred. In Cooper & Worsham v. Mayor, 1848, 4 Ga., 68, the plaintiff ap- plied, under a writ of habeas corpus, for discharge from imprison- ment in pursuance to an ordinance of the city of Savannah, which CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 65 provided that each free person of color removing to the city should pay the sum of $100, or in default thereof should be arrested and confined in the city jail until such sum was paid. The court held that the ordinance was repugnant to the laws of the State, and so void, but began its opinion by declaring that — free persons of color have never been recognized here as citizens ; they are not entitled to bear arms, vote for members of the legislature, or to hold any civil office. They have always been considered as in a state of pupilage, and been regarded as our wards, and for that very reason we should be extremely careful to guard and protect all the rights secured to them by our municipal regulations. They have no political rights, but they have personal rights, one of which is personal liberty. The reporter has added to this case the following note : Note. — By a joint resolution of the legislature of Georgia in 1842 it was unanimously resolved that free negroes are not citizens of the United States, " and that Georgia will never recognize such citizenship." (Pam. Acts, 1842, p. 182.) The next case in point of time was the great Dred Scott decision, 1856, 19 How., 393. It is now universally conceded that the greater portions of the opinions in v that case are elaborate dicta, and that, as the pleadings stood, the question purported to be decided, namely, the citizenship of free negroes, could not under any proper view have been before the court. However, this much may be said : There can certainly be no question, it would seem, but that had the ques- tion been actually before the court it would have determined against citizenship. No stronger evidence of the truth of this remark could be submitted than the facts which attended the repeated argument of that case and the pains taken by the majority of the court in attempting to bring that question within their view for determination. Their expressions on the question were unequivocal. In the course of his opinion Chief Justice Taney said : - The words " people of the United States " and " citizens " are synonymous terms and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, ac- cording to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the " sovereign people," and every citizen is one of this people and a constituent member of this sovereignty. The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a por- tion of this people and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be in- cluded, under the word " citizens " in the Constitution, and can, therefore, claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time con- sidered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them. This decision, of course, was not without its effect, and cases arising in the South thereafter cited it for the proposition which the Chief Justice announced. Heirn v. Bridault, 1859, 37 Miss., 209 ; Mitchell v. Wells, id., 235, 260 ; Anonymous, 1859, 21 Law Re- porter, 630; Clark v. Gautier, 1859, 8 Fla., 360; Marshall v. Dono- van, 1874, 73 Ky, 681 ; Donovan v. Pitcher, 1875, 1875, 53 Ala., 411, 25 Am. Rep., 634. Some courts have hesitated, as already stated, between these two extreme views. In State v. Newsom, 1844, 5 Ired. (N. C), 250, the H. Doc. 326, 59-2 5 66 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. defendant, Elijah Newsom, a free person of color, was indicted for unlawfully carrying about his person one shotgun, without having obtained a license therefor, contrary to the provisions of a statute. In holding that this statute was constitutional and therefore that free negroes might not carry firearms without a license, the court said: We must, therefore, regard it as a principle, settled by the highest authority, the organic law of the country, that the free people of color can not be con- sidered as citizens, in the largest sense of the term, or, if they are, they' occupy such a position in society as justifies the legislature in adopting a course of policy in its act peculiar to them ; so that they do not violate those great prin- ciples of justice which ought to lie at the foundation of all laws. In similar case of Ely v. Thompson, 1820, 3 A. K. Marshall (Ky.), 70, Judge Mills, in delivering his opinion, said : But we are still met by the argument that free persons of color are not parties to the political compact. This we- can not admit to the extent con- tended for. They are certainly, in some measure, parties. Although they have not every benefit or privilege which the Constitution secures, yet they have many secured by it. We need not take the trouble of inquiring how far they are or are not parties. In Walsh v. Lallande, 1873, 25 La. Ann., 188, the court, in passing upon the status of a free negro in the year 1860, said : A citizen in its largest sense is any native-born or naturalized person who is entitled to full protection in the exercise and enjoyment of the so-called private rights. He declared the free negro to be such a person. In Shaw v. Brown, 1858, 35 Miss., 246, 315, the court seems to have faced squarely the condition in which decisions holding that free persons were not citizens had forced the courts. He said : But negroes born in the United States, and free by the laws of the State in which they reside, are in a different condition from aliens. They are natives and not aliens. Though not citizens of the State in which they reside within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, they are inhabitants and subjects of the State, owing allegiance to it, and entitled to protection by its laws and those of the United States; for by the common law and the law of nations, all persons born within the dominion of the sovereign are his natural- born subjects and owe allegiance to him and obedience to the laws and are en- titled to protection. It is true that these persons are a subordinate and inferior class of beings, and " have no rights but such as those who hold the power and the Government might choose to grant them " — Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How., 405 — but they derive their rights from the States m which they are domiciled. An interesting question has arisen as to the status of the child of an escaped slave who had fled to Canada, the child being born in Canada and the father never having returned to the United States. The child had applied for registration in Detroit, and upon this being refused, filed a petition for a mandamus to compel the board of registration to enroll him. No steps had ever been taken to com- ply with the statutes relative to naturalization. It was contended for the relator that he was a citizen by virtue of the fourteenth amend- ment. This view, however, was not adopted by the court, which denied his application, Cooley, J., delivering the opinion, Christiancy, C. J., and Graves, J., concurring, Campbell, J., delivering a short opinion concurring in its result. G. Mixed races.— -The question of the citizenship of persons of mixed blood has arisen in the United States with reference to two races — the Indians and the negroes. The question is not without CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATKTATION, ETC. 67 some difficulty, though the rules applicable are simple in their statement and well understood. A number of the cases collected here do not involve pure questions of citizenship, but the court acted on the principle which has been applied in cases where that point was before the court for determination. In the case of United States v. Sanders, 1847, Hemp., 483, 485, the defendant, a Cherokee Indian, was indicted for the murder of a white boy. The evidence fully established a wanton and unpro- voked murder. The prisoner, however, contended that the mother of the boy was an Indian woman, and the evidence seemed to sup- port him, although it did not appear whether or not she was an Indian of full blood. The defense was that the offense charged in the indictment was committed by one Indian against another, and that consequently the offense was not punishable by a Federal court, the intercourse act of 1834 providing that " for offenses between In- dians the Indian courts should administer the punishment." In discussing whether or not the person killed was an Indian, the court said: That act does not define an Indian, but uses a general term without embracing or excluding any particular class of persons. On consultation with my brother judge, we concur in laying down this rule as the safest — that the child must follow the condition of the mother. If the mother is an Indian woman her offspring must be considered Indians within the meaning of the proviso alluded to, whether the father be a white man or Indian. And so, on the other hand, the child of a white woman by an Indian father would, for all the purposes of that act, be deemed of the white race, the condition of the mother, and not the quantum of Indian blood in the veins, determining the condition of the offspring. This is substantially following the common-law rule, which was borrowed from the civil law. Justinian's Inst., book 1, title 4, p. 13.. The rule of the civil law was, that one born of a free mother was free, although the father was a slave ; and so, on the other hand, if the mother was a slave, the offspring partook of her condition. Rutherford's Inst., 247 ; Shelton v. Barbour, 2 Wash., 67. There can be no doubt that the rule partus sequitur ventrem gen- erally obtains in this country. Hudgins v. Wrights, 1 Hen. & Munf., 137 ; Pegram v. Isabell, 2 Hen. & Munf., 193 ; Chancellor v. Milton, 1 B. Mon., 25 ; Esther v. Akin, 3 B. Mon., 60. ; The prisoner was discharged. While the court, in laying down the rule thus, stated the law, his application of it to the facts in hand has been explained and criticised in Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402, in which the question was also as to the jurisdiction of the Federal court to punish for murder. The prisoner claimed that both himself and the man who was killed were Indians, and based his claim on the fact that each had married an Indian woman. It then became necessary to examine whether or not the wives of Reynolds and Puryear (the murdered man) were Indians. The wife of Reynolds was shown to be the offspring of a mother with Indian blood, her father being a full blooded Choctaw. Mrs. Puryear had some Indian blood in her veins, as had also her father, but her paternal grandfather was a full blooded white man. The question then was to what nationality she belonged, whether she was a citizen of the United States or a Choctaw woman. The court proceeds : Does the quantum of Indian blood in the veins of the party determine the fact as to whether such party is of the white or Indian race? If so, how much Indian blood does it take to make an Indian, or how much white blood to make a person a member of the body politic known as American citizens? Where do we find any rule on the subject which makes the quantum of blood the standard of nationality? Certainly not from the statute law of the United 68 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. States ; nor is it to be' found in the common law. In the case of the United States v. Sanders (Hempst, 486) the court held that the quantum of Indian blood in the veins did not determine the condition of the offspring of a union between a white person and an Indian; but further held that the condition of the mother did determine the question. And the court referred to the common law as authority for the position that the condition of the mother fixed the status of the offspring. The court is sustained in the first position by the com- mon law, and also in the last position, if applied to the offspring of a connection between a freeman and a slave, upon the principle handed down from the Roman civil law, that the owner of a female animal is entitled to all her brood, according to the maxim partus sequitur v'entrem. But by the common law this rule is reversed with regard to the offspring of free persons. Their offspring follows the condition of the father, and the rule partus sequitur patrem prevails in determining their status. (1 Bouvier's Institutes, 198, sec. 502 ; 31 Barb., 486 ; 2 Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 147 ; Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet, 242.) This is the universal maxim of the common law with regard to freemen, as old as the common law, or even as the Roman civil law, and as well settled as the rule partus sequitur ventrem, the one being a rule fixing the status of freemen, the other being a rule denning the ownership of property ; the one applicable to different political communities or states, whose citizens are in the enjoyment of the civil rights possessed by people in a state of freedom, the other defining the condition of the offspring which had been tainted by the bondage of the mother. No other rules than the ones above enumerated ever did prevail in this or any other civilized country. In the case of Ludlam v. Ludlam (31 Barb., 480) the court says : " The universal maxim of the common law being partus sequitur patrem, it is sufficient for the application of this doctrine that the father should ba a subject lawfully, and without breach of his allegiance beyond sea, no matter what may be the condition of the mother." The law of nations, which becomes, when applicable to an existing condition of affairs in a country, a part of the common law of that country, declares the same rule. Vattel, in his Law of Nations (p. 101), says: "As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, these children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to their rights. * * * The country of the father is, therefore, that of the chil- dren, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.'' Again, on page 102, Vattel says : " By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers and enter into all their rights." This law of nature, as far as it has become a part of the common law, in the absence of any posi- tive enactment on the subject, must be the rule in this ease. These Indians are freemen; the paternal ancestors of Mrs. Puryear were freemen. The rule applicable to the offspring of freemen is certainly appli- cable here, if the status of the Indian nations is as declared so often by the Supreme Court of the United States, because, if that be their true status as tribes or nations, the question is to be solved in the same way as if one parent was a citizen of the United States and the other a citizen of a foreign nation. The court held that the deceased Puryear did not become an Indian by marriage. As suggested above, the rules here laid down are the ones which have been usually applied in deciding the cases which have arisen, and the cases following are grouped according to this classification. First. Cases under the rule partus sequitur ventrem. In the two early cases of Hudgins v. Wright, 1806, 1 Hen. & Munf., 133, and Pegram v, Isabel, 1808, 2 Hen. & Munf., 193, the question arose in suits brought to establish the freedom of parties held as slaves. In each case the parties had negro blood in their veins, and in each case their genealogy was traced back by the evidence in the cause to an Indian female ancestor. By the laws of Virginia it appears that Indians could not, normally, be held as slaves in Virginia, though their slavery had been tolerated between the years 1679 and 1691. In both cases the ruling was the same — that notwithstanding the negro blood, if the parties were descended from Indian female an- CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 69 cestors not held as slaves within the period specified, they were free- men and not slaves." In Alberty v. United States, 1895, 162 U. S., 499, 501, the plaintiff in error, a Cherokee negro, who had been sentenced to death for the murder of one Duncan, sued out a writ of error assigning a want of jurisdiction in the lower court. It was found as a fact that Alberty was a negro, born in slavery, who became a citizen of the Cherokee Nation by virtue of a treaty. It appeared that Duncan, the deceased, was the illegitimate child of a Choctaw Indian by a colored woman who was not his wife, but a slave in the Cherokee Nation. The court said : As his mother was a negro slave, under the rule partus sequitur ventrem he must be treated as a negro by birth and not as a Choctaw Indian. * * * For the purposes of jurisdiction, then, Alberty must be treated as a member of the Cherokee Nation, but not an Indian ; and Duncan as a colored citizen of the United States. Second. Cases decided according to the rule partus sequitur patrem. This question was discussed under a very interesting state of facts in the case of McKay v. Campbell, 1871, 2 Sawy., 119, s. c, 2 Abb., U. S., 120. The action was brought to recover a penalty provided by act of Congress entitled "An act to enforce the right of citizens, of the United States to vote in the several States of the Union, and for other purposes." The defendant had refused to reg- ister the plaintiff, alleging that the latter was an Indian. The ances- try of the plaintiff appeared to be thus : His paternal grandfather was a Scotchman who emigrated to Canada and there married one Mar- garet Bruce, a woman having one-quarter Indian blood. Of this marriage a son was born, Thomas. The father, mother, and. son, in the year 1810, moved to what is now Oregon, the father being a part- ner in the Pacific Fur Company with John Jacob Astor. The grand- father dying, the son Thomas found employment with a corporation organized under the laws of Great Britain. He married a Chinook Indian woman and the plaintiff was the issue of that marriage. These facts should be noted : That at the time of his birth, which was at Fort George, now Astoria, the country was under the joint occu- pancy of England and the United States, and that neither his father "The two cases below are of interest in showing the operation of the prin- ciple, though not in cases of mixed blood. In Chancellor f. Martin, 1840, 1 B. Mon., 25, the defendant in error was born after the institution of a suit by the mother to regain her freedom, in which suit judgment was given in the mother's favor. The court held that the judgment was conclusive proof of the freedom of the child. In another case in the same court, Ester v. Akin, 1842, 3 B. Jlon., 60, it appeared that one David Rice, the owner of several slaves, devised certain slaves to his children. To his daughter he gave " the use of Edith ; but it is my will that the children that the said Edith now has may be free, as well as those she may have hereafter — the males when they shall severally arrive at the age of 25, the females when they shall arrive at the age of 23 years." About twenty-two years after the testator's death several persons, including some grandchildren of Edith, filed their bills in chancery to obtain liberation. All were liberated, except three grandchildren who were born before their mothers had attained 23 years of age. The question arose as to the status of these three children. The court held them to be slaves, on the ground that at the time of their births their mothers were still slaves. Of course, under the fourteenth amendment these decisions have no practical effect. However, the matter often becomes of decisive importance where the question concerns the jurisdiction of Federal courts over Indians. 70 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATKIATION, ETC. nor his grandfather were citizens of the United States by birth or naturalization. He himself, however, claimed citizenship by birth, and this raised the question whether or not he was an Indian. The court gave the following opinion : According to the case of United States v. Sanders, Memp., 483, the plaintiff follows the condition of his mother, and is an alien. It was held in that case that the issue of an Indian "woman and a white man is an Indian, . and vice versa ; that the rule of the civil law, partus sequitur ventrem, prevailed. But the contrary is the rule of the common law in the analogous case of the issue of a marriage between a freeman and a neif. (2 Black. Com., 94.) In such case by that rule the child follows the condition of the father. My impression is that the plaintiff ought to be deemed to follow the condition of his father. It therefore followed that the plaintiff was not a citizen of the United States. A further point in the case, as to whether he might not be naturalized, will be discussed later. In United States v. Ward, 1890, 42 Fed., 320, an indictment had been found against the defendant, who was alleged to be an Indian. He was the son of a negro father by an Indian mother. The Fed- eral statute of 1885 (23 Stat. L., 385) provided that offenses between Indians committed within the boundaries of any State of the United States and within the limits of any Indian reservation should be tried by the Federal courts. The defendant pleaded that he was not an Indian, and therefore not triable in the Federal court. Ross, J., after examining United States v. Sanders and Ex parte Reynolds, declared that under the rule of the latter the defendant was not an Indian, and that the jury must therefore be directed to bring in a verdict of not guilty. In United States v. Hadley, 1900, 99 Fed., 437, the son of an Indian mother, the father being white, was held to be a citizen not- withstanding their residence upon a reservation and an acceptance of an allotment of Indian lands. The court, in a dictum, suggests that if such a one should grow up among the Indians and live as Indians he would be as much the subject of governmental concern as Indians of full blood, suggesting, though not stating, that he would not be a citizen. In Davis v. Hall, 1818, 1 Nott & McCord, 292, under a similar state of facts, except that the child was born on the reservation, the court reached the same result, but on the theory that the Indian woman by marrying a citizen became a citizen. In United States v. Higgins, 1901, 110 Fed., 609, an individual of the same blood was held to be a white person — not an Indian — for purposes of taxation. This case relied on United States v. Hadley, supra, and distinguished an earlier case of United States v. Higgins, 1900, 103 Fed., 348, which held to the contrary. The courts have at times made decisions involving the rights of persons of mixed blood and have based these decisions upon the quantity of blood of the one kind or the other which the person in question possessed. A series of cases of this kind has arisen in Ohio, beginning with Gray v. The State, 1831, 4 Ohio, 353, in which the question was whether or not a " negro " could be a witness on behalf of the State. The statute compelled " courts of justice to reject black and mulatto witnesses where a white person is a party." The party in question here " appeared, upon inspection, and of such opinion was the court, to be of a shade of color between the mulatto and white.'" The court expressed itself as unwilling to extend the CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATEIATION, ETC. 71 disabilities of the statute further than its letter required, and de- clared the party, therefore, a competent witness. He said : " We believe a man, of a race nearer white than a mulatto, is admissible as a witness, and should partake in the privileges of whites." This case was approved in a series of cases which follow, the later ones usually involving the question of the privileges of children, with reference to the public schools and the public school fund. In Williams v. Directors of the School District, 1834, Wright, 578, 580, the law in question provided that while the teacher was employed out of the common school fund, the school should be free to all white children. The question to be decided in this case was whether or not children of a white mother and a father three-quarters white were white within the meaning of the law, and the court, relying on Gray v. State, supra, held that the children came within the terms of the statute. The court said: We think the term white as used in the law describes Hood, and not complexion, and are satisfied with the construction heretofore given. The plaintiff's children, therefore, are white within the meaning of the law, though the defendants have had the shabby meanness to ask from him his contribu- tion of tax and exclude his children from the benefit of the schools he helped to support. In Jeffries v. Ankeny, 1842, 11 Ohio, 372, 375, the question was whether or not the plaintiff was of the Indian race, although having no more than one-fourth Indian blood, the rest being white. The constitution had provided that free white citizens were entitled to the franchise. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to vote, Head, J., dissenting. Lane, C. J., in the majority opinion said : We regard this matter as clearly settled by the interpretation which the expression in the constitution has received by this court on the circuit and in banc. In 1831, in the case of Polly Gray v. The State of Ohio, 4 Ohio Rep., 354 ; and in 1833, in the case of Williamson v. School Directors, etc., Wright's Report, 178, it was held that in the constitution and the laws on this subject there were enumerated three descriptions of persons — whites, blacks, and mulattoes — upon the two last of whom disabilities rested; that the mulatto was the middle term between the extremes, or the offspring of a white and a black ; that all nearer white than black or of the grade between the mulattoes and the whites were entitled to enjoy every political and social privilege of the white citizen; that no other rule could be adopted so intelligible and so prac- ticable as this, and that further refinements would .lead to inconvenience and to no good result. In his dissenting opinion Bead, J., said : Indians are not designated as white men. If not, part Indians can not be pure whites; and to hold that all persons less than half Indian are white would establish a principle that would make all persons less than half black or negro white. This would admit into our common schools all persons who were less than half negro or black. Now, it is known that the people of Ohio will not permit their children to be compelled to associate with persons of part negro blood in our schools. To prevent this matter the phraseology of the statute was carefully worded. The next case before this court was as to the right of a person with negro blood to vote, and the court with the same dissent held that an instruction to the jury which declared that in case the plaintiff had more white than negro blood he was entitled to vote was correct. Thacker v. Hawk, 1842, 11 Ohio St., 376. The question arose once more in Ohio in the case of Lane v. Baker, 1843, 12 Ohio., 237, in which a child with Indian, negro, and white blood, but who the jury found was of " more than half white blood," had been denied 72 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. admission to the schools. The court, following the cases already- cited, held that such a one was white within the meaning of the statute. The case in the Federal courts of McKay v. Campbell, already dis- cussed, supra, was also made to turn somewhat upon this point. The court in that case mathematically calculated the quantum of Indian blood in the plaintiff's veins, reaching the following decision : The plaintiff is nine-sixteenths Indian, eight of which he gets from his Chinook mother and the other one from his Canadian father. As a matter of fact, the Indian blood predominating, he is not a half-breed, as claimed on the argument by his counsel, but I can not perceive that it is material to consider whether he is a half-breed or not. In legal contemplation he is an American Indian by virtue of his mother being a member of the Chinook tribe, or a British subject, without reference to his race, by virtue of being the son of Thomas McKay and his birth in the allegiance of the British Crown. But as already indicated above, what the court really decided was that the status of the father controlled. The question was referred to in In re Camille, 1880, 6 Sawy., 541, in which it appeared that Frank. Camille, an applicant for admission as a citizen, in the case, was half white and half Indian, and the court, after an examination of the cases discussed above said : Upon these authorities, and none other have come under my observation, the petitioner is not entitled to be considered a white man. As a matter of fact he is as much an Indian as a white person, and might be classed with the one race as properly as the other. Strictly speaking he belongs to neither. The court denied citizenship. Of course the fourteenth amendment has put an end to all con- troversies in the matter concerning persons of mixed white and negro blood, though the question might still be agitated with refer- ence to persons of mixed Indian and white blood; but it would seem that the rules already discussed in connection with the status of persons of mixed blood would be entirely sufficient to dispose of such questions without resorting to a ' computation of the amount of the respective bloods which a person might have in his veins. D. Inhabitants of acquired territories. — The status of inhabitants in territory acquired by treaty or purchase is usually to be deter- mined by reference to the terms of the instruments involved in the transfer, and this question has been somewhat fully treated in Chap- ter VI, Part II, infra. The matter will therefore be disposed of here with a few words. The inhabitants of Florida were held to be citizens of the United States during the time they were under Territorial government (American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1828, 1 Pet., 511), but not so with the inhabitants of the Territory of New Orleans under the treaty of 1803, for it appears almost certain that they were not citizens of the United States until the Territory was admitted as the State of Louisiana (Desbois's case, 1812, 2 'Mart., 185 ; United States v. Laverty, 1813, 3 Mart., 736; State v. Primrose, 1843, 3 Ala., 546; In re Harold, 1840, 1 Clark (Pa., L. J.) , 214) . More recently the question has arisen in connection with the in- habitants of our island possessions, but has not yet been squarely decided. In re Gonzales, 1902, 118 Fed., 941, the question arose as to whether or not a native Porto Kican woman was a citizen or an alien within the laws restricting immigration, and the circuit court held she was not a citizen but an alien. On appeal, however, to the CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 73 Supreme Court, under the title of Gonzales v. "Williams, 1903, 192 U. S., 1, the court held she was not an alien within the meaning of the immigration laws, but expressly waived the question of citizen- ship, which remains undecided, unless, indeed, the ground is taken that all persons must be either citizens or aliens, which may well be regarded as questionable in view of the decisions cited above con- cerning the status of the inhabitants of the Territory of New Orleans before its admission as Louisiana. The general question of the relationship of Porto Eico and the Philippines to the United States has received elaborate treatment in Downes v. Bidwell, 1900, 182 U. S., 244 ; Dorr v. United States, 1903, 195 U. S., 138, and the insular cases generally. And see also Hawaii v. Mankichi, 1902, 190 U. S., 197; Easmussen v. United States, 1904, 197 U. S., 516. Section 2. — Of alien inhabitants. A. OF PARENTS WHO MAY BECOME CITIZENS. Where the residence was temporary. — This question as to the citi- zenship of children born in the United States of alien parents who were in this country merely temporarily arose and was elaborately examined in the case of Lynch v. Clark, 1844, 1 Sandf. Ch., 583. It appeared in that case that not only were the parents here tempo- rarily, but that within a year from the time of the child's birth they had taken her with them on their return to their native country--- Great Britain. The court showed no hesitancy in declaring that the child so born was a citizen of the United States. In a later New York case, Munro o. Merchant, 1858, 2G Barb., 383, 400, when the question came again before the court, under circumstances that were almost identical, the court followed, but questioned, the Clark case. Where the residence was permanent. — Of course if the above cases . are sound, as they would seem to be on the question of birth, it fol- lows that where the residence is permanent the child born here of such residents should be considered a citizen of the United States; and such has been the uniform doctrine as announced by both Fed- eral and State courts. See McCreery v. Somerville, 1824, 9 Wheat., 354 (children of Irish parents) ; McClean v. Swanton, 1856, 13 N. Y., 535; Benny v. O'Brien, 1895, 58 N. J. L, 36 (children of Scotch parentage) ;' In re Giovanna, 1899, 93 Fed., 659 (children of Italian parentage) ; and see Hartford v. Canaan, 1886, 55 Conn.. 39. An interesting application (perhaps an exception) of the doctrine is found in McKay v. Campbell, 1871, 2 Sawy.. 118, in which it was held that a child born in Oregon of British parents during the joint occupation of that territory by the United States and Great Britain was a British subject. B. OF PARENTS WHO MAY NOT BECOME CITIZENS. This question seems to have arisen in connection with alien parents who were domiciled in this country, and not in connection with per- sons residing here temporarily. Moreover, the cases found have always concerned the citizenship of persons of Chinese parentage. The leading case on the subject is In re Look Tin Sing, 1884. 10 74 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. Sawy., 353, s. c. 21 Fed., 905, in which Field, circuit justice, held that under the fourteenth amendment a person born of alien parents who might not themselves be naturalized was, by his birth, a citizen of the United States, and that it was immaterial that the parents of such a person were not able to become citizens under our naturali- zation laws.® This case has been recognized and followed ever since its determination. Ex parte Chin Kmg, Ex parte Chan San Hee, 1888, 35 Fed., 354; In re Yung Sing Hee, 1888, 36 Fed., 437 (in these cases it; was declared that the rule acted upon was the rule of the common law which had been incorporated into our " funda- mental law " by the fourteenth amendment) ; In re Wy Shing, In re Wong Gan, 1888, 36 Fed., 553. While the principle was recognized by the Federal Supreme Court as early as 1891 (see Quock Ting v. United States, 1891, 140 U. S., 417), the question did not come up for decision until the great case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898, 169 U. S., 649, affirming 71 Fed., 382, when the court held squarely that a person horn in the United States of Chinese parent- age was a citizen of the United States. While the following de- cisions have not held this doctrine, they have recognized it, the decision in each case going to the point of what evidence was suffi- cient or insufficient to establish the fact of citizenship: State v. Chew, 1881, 16 Nev., 50 (which appears to be the earliest case in which the principle is recognized, it being three years earlier than the Look Tin Sing case) ; Quock Ting v. United States, supra; Lem Hing Dun v. United States, 1892, 1C.C. A., 210; Gee Fook Sing v. United States, 1893, 49 Fed., 146 ; United States v. Chung Fung Sun, 1894, 63 Fed., 261; Lee Sing Far v. United States, 1899, 94 Fed., 834. C. ELECTION OF CITIZENSHIP. Inasmuch as our Government declares that all persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States, and also recognizes, as well as adopts, on its own part, the rule that children of citizens • resident abroad are citizens of the country to which the parents owe allegiance, there arises, as will be seen, a conflict of citizenship, spoken of usually as dual allegiance. The matter was up for consid- eration and decision in Trimbles v. Harrison, 1840, 1 B. Mon., 140, where the matter to be determined was as to the citizenship of a woman who, born in Boston in 1773, of British, parents, was taken by her father to England prior to 1798, where she was married. In discussing this question the court said : The question then arises, Was Anne E. Dixon an American citizen or was she a British subject at the time of her father's death? Being born at Boston in 1773, she was by birth a British subject, with the right, however, upon the principles already stated, of changing or retaining that character. Being inca- pacitated by infancy from making an election for herself during the Revolu- tion, her election should be considered as having followed the character of her father, subject to the right of disaffirmance in a reasonable time after the termination of her minority, and her condition was not conclusively decided by the treaty of peace. Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet., 123-126. Did she disaffirm the election, or adhere? The witness, after speaking of the time of her birth, says " she was subsequently brought to England by her father, where <*As will be noted later, Justice Field had decided six years earlier the leading case which denied to Mongolians the right to be naturalized. See In re Ah Yup, 1878, 5 Sawy., 155. See also Part 3, chap. 1, sec. 3 A, infra. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETO. 75 she was married on the 5th of July, 1798." If from this language it is to be implied, as it may be, that she was taken to England during her minority, then, as while there she was married when of mature age to a British subject, and as she has remained there ever since, we should not doubt that these circum- stances furnish ample manifestation of her dissent from her father's election for her and of her adherence to her native allegiance. If she was not taken to Eng- land until after she had attained the age of 21 years, still her marriage and continued residence there for so long a period are sufficient evidence of her determination to become a British subject. (Shanks v. Dupont, supra.) These facts may be regarded as manifesting that such was her intention, not only from the time of her going there, but from the time when she was capable of electing for herself to which allegiance she would adhere; and as it may be presumed that her being taken there afforded the first opportunity of decisively manifesting her dissent from her father's election for her, we are of opinion that her disaffirmance must be regarded as having been made within a reasonable time, no matter at what period before her marriage she was taken to England. Had she affirmed the election made for her, the affirmance would have related back with the same effect as if she had been capable during the Revolution and had then made it herself. As she disaffirmed It, her native allegiance was never renounced or released, and she remains as she was born, a British subject, and so we presume she would choose to be regarded and, as we suppose, would be regarded in England if she should survive her husband and claim dower in his lands there. But if we should be mistaken in placing her alienage on the ground of her having disaffirmed her father's election for her within a reason- able time after the termination of her minority, and if, therefore, she is to be considered as having been once a citizen of the United States, still the decisive facts remain that, being in England and of mature age, she there married a British subject, with the prospect and therefore with the presumed intention of remaining during life in that country and subject to its power, and that she has for forty -years so remained a subject, in fact, of Great Britain. These facts, as we think, sufficiently demonstrate her intention to renounce her char- acter as an American citizen and to identify herself, in allegiance as well as in fortune, with her husband and his country. In Lynch v. Clark, 1844 (1 Sandf. Ch. 583, 673), the question was elaborately considered though not decided, and while the assistant vice-chancellor stated no definite conclusion on the matter, he appears to have regarded the right of election not only as undesirable, but as wholly unsound politically. He began his discussion of the matter by saying: It was assumed to be an indisputable proposition, that by the international or public law she Tan American child born of foreign parents and taken to the native country of the parents during the first year of her life, in which country she had since resided] was an alien ; for that by the public law. the child fol- lows the political condition of the parent. It is evident that this rule, without very important qualifications, might lead to the perpetuation of a race of aliens; for if no one of the successive fathers effected his naturalization during the minority of the next in succession, generation after generation would continue in a state of alienage. Accordingly, the difficulty is sought to be obviated, by giving to the child born of alien parents the election, on arriving at maturity, to become a citizen either of the State where he was born or of the State of which his father was a member. In effect, this^rings us back to the theory of the formation of States and Governments, by voluntary com- pact of their inhabitants; and yields to every man the unqualified right of throwing off allegiance by birth, whenever he becomes of age, and attaching himself to any community which pleases him. And if he may do it when he attains his full age, why may he not exercise the same natural right every successive year of his life, and with these notions of allegiance fully estab- lished, a State with a well-appointed army of its citizens in the field to-day might to-morrow find itself without citizens, and its troops in the full fruition of a new allegiance in the ranks of its enemy. However, notwithstanding such expressions as this, the right of election has been recognized by our courts, and in the Supreme Court as early as 1830 (see Inglis n left to the States. The Constitution wentrmtorfiiH-operation on the 4th day of March, 1789. The first Congress assembled under it, at its second session, ex ercised the powe r con- ferred upon that body by the Constitution, and on the 20th day of March, 1790, passed_an_act to -establish _a uniform .system of, naturalization. And from that time to the present there has been one or more acts'bf Congress regulating this subject constantly in force. After Congress exercised this power, it is well set- tled that it no longer fell within the scope of State legislation. In Collet v. Collet (2 Dallas, 294), decided in 1792, in the United States cir- cuit court in Pennsylvania, the judges held that the States still had a concur- rent power of naturalizing, provided they did not contravene the legislation of Congress. But Judge Iredell expresed a contrary opinion in the same court as early as 1797, in the United States v. Villato (2 Dallas, 370). And in Chirac v. Chirac (2 Wheat, 259) the Supreme Court of the United States held that the power was exclusively in Congress. The authors of the Federalist, in the numbers before cited, insisted that the power to naturalize must necessarily be exclusive, else there could be.no uniform rule. And it seems now to be conceded on all hands that it is exclusive. In Stephens, petitioner, supra, Shaw, C. J., briefly expressed the same view as follows : We suppose it to be a position uncontested that by the Constitution of the United States power is vested exclusively in the General Government to grant letters of naturalization to foreigners, and that a similar power„_formerly exer- cised by the respective State governments, has -been" "superseded (Chirac v. .Chirac, 2 Wheat., 269). If the State government, its courts, or magistrates " have any authority on the subject, it must be derived from the General Govern- ment. To the same effect is the opinion of Hoffman, J., in In re Ramsden : In the next place, it appears to me that the power conferred is a power over the Whole subject — the power- -exclusively Jo constitute citizens — -not, merely "u. power to prescribe how the State shall do so. To establish a -rule of nsnsiralization is to declare how aliens shall become citizens. It involves the whole power of effecting the object, as well as all details of its exercise. When, then, the people of the United States have said that Congress shall have that power and Congress exercises it. the right to accomplish it in any other mode or by any other body is superseded. And Paine, J., in In re Wehlitz, supra, remarked that — The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uni- form rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive and has always been held by this court to be so. THEORIES ON WHICH THIS EXCLUSIVE POWER IS BASED. The theory underlying the doctrine that the power to naturalize is exclusively in the Federal Government has been variously stated. Doubtless the earliest theory propounded was that of Hamilton in the Federalist, No. 32, quoted, supra, to the effect that — This must necessarily be exclusive, because if each' State had power to prescribe a distinct rule there could not be a uniform rule. In Collett v. Collett, supra, the court announced that — the true reason for investing Congress with the power, of naturalization has been assigned at the bar. It was to guard against too narrow, instead of too liberal, a mode of conferring.. the rights of citizenship. Thus the individual States can not exclude- those citizens who have been adopted by the United States, but they can adopt citizens upon easier terms than those which Con- gress may deem it expedient to impose. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 87 In a dissenting opinion in Houston v. Moore (1820), 5 Wheat., 1, 48, Mr. Justice Story made a statement of the principle in the fol- lowing terms: The Constitution containing a g rant of powers, in many instances, similar to those already existing in the State governments, and some of these "being of vital importance also to State authority and* State legislation, it is not to be admitted that a mere grant of such powers in affirmative terms to Congress does per se transfer an exclusive sovereignty on such subjects to the latter. On the contrary, a reasonable Interpretation of that instrument necessarily leads to the conclusioa^that the_ powers_so granted are never exclusive of similar_^o_wjeig_existing in the States, unless^wfiere the Constitution Bs'ex- pre ssly in term s_given "an exclusive power to Congress, or the exercise of a like power is prohibited to the States, or there is a direct repugnancy or . in compati bil ity i n the exe rcise of itjby the States. The example of the first class is to BeTouud in l.he exclusive legislation delegated to Congress over places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for forts, arsenals, dock-yar4s, etc. ; of the second class, the prohibition of a State to coin money or emit bills of credit; oJLth e th ird cla ss, as t his xxmrt have already held, the power to establish an uniform rule ofT naturalization (Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheat., 258, 269). and the delegation of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction (Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat., 304, 337). And see the Federalist, No. 32.^ (See also the question, supra, from the Passenger cases, Mr. Jus- tice Woodbury's opinion.) In the License cases [ (1847) , 5 How., 504, 584] Chief Justice Taney made the following comments: And in the case of Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheat., 269, which arose under the grant of power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, where the court speak of the power of Congress as exclusive, they are evidently merely sanc- tioning the argument of counsel stated in the preceding sentence, which placed the invalidity ,of the naturalization under the law of Maryland, not solely upon , the grant of pewer in the Constitution, but insisted that the Maryland law was " virtually repealed by the Constitution of the United States, and the act of naturalization enacted by Congress." Undoubtedly it was so repealed, and the opposing counsel in the case did not dispute it. For the law of the United States covered every part of the Union, and there could not, therefore, by possibility be a State law which did not come in conflict with it. And, indeed, in this case- it might well have been doubted whether the grant in the Con stitution itself did not abrogate the power of the States, inasmuch as the Constitution also provided that the citizens of each State should be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States ; and it would seem to be hardly consistent with this provision to allow any one State, after the adoption of the Constitution, to exercise a power which, if operated at all, must operate beyond the territory of the State, and compel other States to acknowledge as citizens those whom it might not be willing to receive. In Golden v. Prince [(1814), 3 Wash. C. C, 313, 324]. Washing- ton, J., stated his reasons for regarding the power to naturalize as exclusively in the General Government, as follows : The«subject of naturalization is strongly illustrative of the principles which this course of reasoning is intended to prove. The power to pass laws upon this subject is found in the same section, and is expressed in words of the same import, with that respecting bankruptcies. Now, suppose Congress, deliberating whether the naturalization of foreigners ought, upon any, or upon what terms, to be allowed — that the deliberations- of that body should result in the conviction that the natural population of the country is most conducive to the public inter- est, and therefore that no encouragement ought to be given to the migration of foreigners to the United States. In what manner is this policy to be rendered effectual? Congress can not, for the purpose of preventing the State legislatures from interfering in this business, pass a negative law, declaring that foreigners shall not be naturalized ; because if the Constitution forbids the exercise of such a power by the State legislatures, such a law would be worse than unnecessary ; 88 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. and if it does not forbid, it, then it would be void. Nothing, then, would remain for that body but, as in the former case, to do nothing. This, then, according to the argument on the part of the defendant, would be the signal to the State legislatures to commence their operations. Virginia, for example, is of opinion that, for the purpose of settling her extensive waste and uncultivated lands, the migration of foreigners, to that State ought to be encour- aged by every means; and in order to favor this policy she declares that the residence of a year or a month, without any other restriction whatever, shall be sufficient to entitle all foreigners to the right of naturalization in that State. They are accordingly made citizens, and, after the constitutional period, are chosen to represent the people of that State in the national legislature, and, emi- grating to the other States, with the Constitution in their hands,, they .claim all the privileges of natural-born citizens of those States. The other States might well complain that, although the people had declared their willingness to admit_ foreigners to the .privileges of natural-born citizens, provided the regulations under which this admission is granted were formed by ( the united wisdom of the representatives of all the States, yet they had never granted or intended to grant to one State the right of legislation over the other States. They might contend that the introduction of foreigners to the electoral franchise, and still more into the national legislature, was an experiment danger- ous to the tranquillity and the welfare of the nation; that they might be tainted with principles unfriendly to our republican institutions, and with for- eign attachments wholly incompatible with their duties as citizens and legisla- tors; that if admitted at all, they should not only abjure all allegiance to any foreign government, and, if of the order of nobility, should renounce all claim to the same; but that they ought to be men of good moral character, and attached to the Constitution of the United States, and, finally, that the grant of this privilege should be preceded by a probationary residence in the United States for a length of time sufficient to afford the necessary proof of the reality of these qualifications in the applicant. These quotations will be sufficient to indicate the range taken by the courts in their discussions. An obvious and simple reason for it may be thus put: If there is to be a citizenship of the United States the United States should determine upon what terms it may be acquired. Section 2. — Courts that may naturalise. The earliest as well as the later statutes passed by Congress on the subject of naturalization contain more or less specifications as to the courts that might naturalize aliens. The act of 1790 provided that the proceedings might be taken before " any common-law court of record." The act of 1795, which repealed the act of 1790, provided that the proceedings be " before the supreme, superior, district, or circuit court of some one of the States or of the Territories north- west or south of the river Ohio or a circuit or district court of the United States." This act was in turn repealed by the act of 1802, which, after specifying the United States courts which might natu- ralize aliens, provided — that every court of record in any individual State having common-law juris- diction and a seal and clerk or prothonotary shall be considered as a district court within the meaning of this act. It is under this latter act that nearly all the litigation involving its subject-matter has arisen. A. Composition of courts. — One of the first questions that arose under the statute of 1802 was as to the meaning of the provision re- garding clerks. The earliest case found in which is discussed the necessity of a clerk for a naturalizing court is that of Ex parte Cregg [(1854), 2 Curtis, 98, 99], where it appeared that the petitioner had applied for naturalization to the police court of the city of Lynn, CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 89 Mass.? a court having no separate person performing the duties of clerk, but only a judge who acted in the capacity of both judge and clerk. In declaring that a'court so constituted was not within the terms of the Federal statute, Judge Curtis said : We are of opinion that the police court of Lynn, in which the justice was the recording officer, was not a court having a clerk within the meaning of the act of Congress. Certainly it does not come within the terms of that act, which clearly imply that there may be courts of record having a seal and common-law jurisdiction but no clerk or prothonotary, and that such courts are not included by the act. Yet how could this be if it were enough that the presiding justice should himself record the proceedings A court of record necessarily requires some duly authorized person to record the proceedings. When the act speaks of courts of record it speaks of courts whose proceedings are duly recorded by authorized persons, and when it says " having a clerk or prothonotary," it superadds the requirement that those proceedings shall be recorded by one of those officers. Unless the act be so construed, the requirement of a clerk or pro- thonotary would have no meaning. The act would have the same construction as if it were stricken out, because the words court of record would carry with them the necessity of having the proceedings recorded by some one by authority of law. Nor do we consider it a vain and useless precaution to con- fine the power to naturalize aliens to courts in which one of those officers is found. The question had been, indeed, discussed in a State court ten years earlier, in Ex parte Gladhill [(1844) 8 Met., 168], but as a statute subsequent to that creating the court had expressly provided a clerk for the court the point did not come up for decision. In the course of his opinion, however, Shaw, C. J., remarked that the court must have a permanent " recording officer charged with the duty of keeping a true record of its doings and afterwards of authenticating them." The same point came up later with reference to the powers of a county court in Nebraska, in that case it being sought by mandamus to compel the judge, who also acted as clerk, to receive an alien's dec- laration of intention to become a citizen. The court, following the opinion of Judge Curtis in Ex parte Cregg, refused the mandamus on the ground that the judge was not a clerk within the meaning of the Federal statute. (State v. Webster, 1878, 7 Nebr., 469.) Subsequently to the Cragg case the question came up in the circuit court for New Hampshire in an anonymous case before Judges Clif- ■ ford and Clark, who rendered a decision directly opposed to Ex parte Cregg. But the case appears never to have been reported, and the New Hampshire courts have since followed the Cregg case, although the anonymous case was before them. (State v. Whittemore, 1870, 50 N. H.,245.) The point has also arisen whether the recorder of a municipal court was a clerk within the meaning of the Federal statute. Dean, peti- tioner (1891), 83 Me., 489. Whitehouse, J., in an opinion holding the affirmative, laid down the following as the principles controlling in such matters : The language of this statute seems to imply tha^ there may be courts of record having common-law jurisdiction and a seal without a clerk, and that such courts are not embraced by the terms of the act. And this is the construc- tion it has received from eminent judicial authority. The court must have a clerk distinct from the judge, not necesarily an officer denominated clerk, but a permanent " recording officer charged with the duty of keeping a true record of its doings and afterwards of authenticating them." (Shaw, C. J., Ex parte Gladhill; Ex parte Craig, and State v. Whittemore, supra.) The court contem- plated by the act of Congress has an organized existence ; it is impersonal ; the judge is one of the constituent parts of the organization ; the clerk is another 90 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. and a separate and independent element. The essential function of the clerk is to make and keep the records and give them legal verification by his attesta- tion and the use of the seal. • By those sections of the act establishing the municipal court of Biddeford above quoted the responsible duty of making and keeping the records of the court is imposed upon the judge and not upon the recorder. There is no duty of making and keeping the records imposed upon the recorder by law. He is to keep the records of the court only when requested so to do by the judge. Furthermore, the recorder of this court can not authenticate by his attesta- tion any copies of records " made and kept " by the judge, or kept by himself at the request of the judge. Only such copies of the records as are "duly certified by the judge shall be legal evidence in all courts." The authority to appoint a recorder was conferred upon the judge, not for the purpose of creat- ing a fixed and permanent clerical office distinct and separate from that ol tho judge, but primarily to provide for the judge a substitute who should be em- powered te act in his stead in the contingencies named m the act. " His signa- ture as recorder is sufficient evidence of his right to act instead of the judge." When thus acting in the judicial capacity, exercising the powers and perforni- ir« the- duties of the judge, the record* r is the covrt. and mi'sr personally make, keep, and authenticate the records of the court. The recorder's court has no clerk other than the recorder himself. Accordingly, in the attestation of the copy of William Dean's declaration of intention, the signature of " Edwin J. Cram, recorder," by the very terms of the act is presumptive evidence that Le wtis acting instead of the ;mdge in somn of the contingencies named in the act. It would seem from these authorities that the term " clerk " in the Federal statute must be understood to mean a clerk of a court according to the usual judicial understanding of the term. He must be a separate individual, holding an office which has distinct and well-defined duties. It is not nervssary, however, that the actual work of the clerk be performed by the clerk himself. It has been held entirely sufficient that it be performed by a deputy acting for the clerk. (State v. Hoeflinger, 1874, 35 Wis., 393.") B. Jurisdiction of courts. — As indicated in the statutes set out at the beginning of this section, a court in order to naturalize must be a court of record having common-law jurisdiction; and questions as to the meaning of each of these phases have frequently arisen. In Ex parte Gladhill (1844), 8 Met., 168, the question was whether or not the police court of Lowell was a ctrart of record within the description of the act of Congress. In finding for the petitioner Chief Justice Shaw expressed himself thus: It possesses all the characteristics of a court of record. It is to be holden by a learned, able, and discreet person to be appointed and commissioned by the governor pursuant to the constitution. In general, all judicial officers by the constitution hold their offices during good behavior, except justices of the peace, whose office is limited to the term of seven years. There is a provision, section 8, for the* appointment of special justices to hold the court whenever the standing justice shall be interested in any suit or prosecution, or shall be unable, from any cause, to hear and determine any matter pending in said court. This indicates the establishment of a court, or judicial organ- ized tribunal, having attributes and exercising functions, independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it, and distinguishes it from the case of a justice of the peace on whom, personally, certain judicial powers are conferred by the law. We have no doubt it is a court of record. Section 6 directs the keeping of a fair record and a subsequent act, cited hereafter, authorizes the appointment of a clerk for the same purpose. <*An obvious limitation exists on this principle 1 , viz, that there must be au- thority for the appointment of a deputy. See Carter v. Territory, 1859, 1 New Mex., 317, 344, on question of certifying declarations of intention to retain Mexican citizenship under treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo. CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 91 And this is in harmony with the language of Curtis, J., in Ex parte Cregg, supra, where he said: A court of record necessarily requires some duly authorized person to record the procedings. When the act speaks of courts of record it speaks of courts whose procedings are duly recorded by authorized persons; and when it says, " having a clerk or prothonotary," it superadds the requirement that those proceedings shall be recorded by one of those officers. Unless the act be so construed, the requirement of a clerk or prothonotary would have no meaning. The act would have the same construction as if it were stricken out ; because the words " court of record " would carry with them the necessity of having the proceedings recorded by some one by authority of law. This statement of the law received the approval of Smith, J., in State v. Whittemore, supra. In Mills v. McCabe, 1867, 44 111., 194, 196, the question arose as to whether or not the marine court of the city of New York, which was created by the act of the general assembly of the State of New York, was a court of record within the scope of the Federal statute. The court had a clerk and a seal, and it had common-law jurisdiction to the extent of $500. The court made the decision turn on whether or not such a court was considered one of record by the courts of New York. As to that, the court in question had been held by the local courts in one case to be a court of record for some purposes, though not considered authorized to give judgment on default; another case had decided it was not a court of record; a third had declared that the proceedings were informal, the plead- ings being oral with nothing that in technical strictness was a judg- ment roll, the judgment record being a mere justice's docket; and further that there could, therefore, be no bill of exceptions from its judgment. Having stated this the Illionis court proceeds: The question, however, seems to have been settled by the court of appeals in New York in the case of Huff v. Knapp, 1 Selden, 65, where it was held that this marine court was not a court of record in the strict legal sense of the term. The court says that it may be called a statutory court of record having certain powers of such a court' expressly given it by statute and none others, and hence it had none of the incidental powers of a court of record. Having been decided by competent authority to be a court of record only to the extent that it was so declared by statute, and not to possess other powers incident to such a court, we are not authorized to hold it a court of record. A fair and reasonable con- struction of the act of Congress requires us to hold that only a court of record for general and not special purposes was intended to be embraced. The act has not declared that a court of record for some purposes only shall be invested with such jurisdiction. Nor do we think such can be held to be the legislative intention. SEAL. As to the requirement of a seal, while no case squarely adjudicating the question has come before the court, in Ex parte Gladhill, supra, Chief Justice Shaw commented upon this matter as follows : The police court, being vested with the same power that is given to a justice of the peace, has power to use a seal. Whenever the statutes have prescribed the forms of writs and processes issued by justices of the peace (as thev have done in many cases), a seal is a part of the form of process thus prescribed; and when a court has not, by any rule or order, adopted any particular form of seal, any seal sanctioned by the court is a sufficient seal. COMMON-LAW JURISDICTION. As to the meaning of the phrase " common-law jurisdiction," the decisions have been far less uniform than on the force of the require- ment as to a court of record. The usual question that comes before 92 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. the courts in this connection is whether or not a court of limited common-law jurisdiction is within the meaning of the statute. As set out above, it has been finally settled, apparently, that only a court of record in the full and strict sense will satisfy the statute. But, as will be seen, the interpretation of the statute is less rigorous with ref- erence to the jurisdiction. Of course the first point to be determined in discussing' the general topic is the meaning of the phrase " common law." Story, J., in Parsons v. Bedford, 1830, 3 Peters, 433, 446, stated definitely thus: " The phrase ' common law found in this clause [which related to trial by jury] is used in contradistinction to equity and admiralty and maritime jurisprudence," and this has been generally adopted by the courts, both Federal and State. With reference to the phrase " com- mon-law jurisdiction " itself, one x>f the earliest cases in which the matter was up for judicial determination is Ex parte Gladhill, supra, in which Shaw, C. J., made the following statement: That this court exercises a common-law jurisdiction there is no doubt. It is authorized to hear and determine all complaints and prosecutions in like manner as justices of the peace and has jurisdiction of all civil suits and actions cogniz- able by a justice of the peace. Among the other more important early cases in which the matter was discussed and disposed of there should be mentioned Ex parte Burkhardt, 1856, 16 Tex., 470; People v. Sweetman, 1857, 3 Parks Crim. Rep., 358, 371 ; Morgan v. Dudley, 1857, 18 B. Monroe, 693, 722; People v. Pease. 1860, 30 Barb., 588, 603; and In re Conner, 1870, 39 Cal., 98, 100. The last case contains one of the clearest statements on the matter to be found. The court said : The term " common-law jurisdiction " is capable of no other meaning than jurisdiction to try and decide causes which were cognizable by the courts of law under what is known as the common law of England. Our judicial system having been modeled chiefly after that of England, we have adopted the nomen- clature which prevailed in her courts. Hence, when we speak through our stat- utes and courts of common-law actions, proceedings at common law, and com- mon-law jurisdiction, we mean such actions, proceedings, and jurisdiction as appertain to the common law of England as administered through her courts. But this statement of the principle does not dispose of the matter. The further question, clearly stated, has arisen, whether the com- mon-law jurisdiction must be unlimited, and in all the cases cited above the courts have reached the conclusion that this is not neces- sary and that it is entirely sufficient if the court exercises any com- mon law jurisdiction at all. Accordingly, in People v. Sweetman, supra,, it was held sufficient that a county court had " exclusive, juris- diction " in the common-law actions of trespass that were commenced in a justice's court (the title to land being in question), although, as the court said, the tribunal had been " shorn of much of its power " by the State constitution. In People v. Pease, supra, it was shown that a county court might hear suits commenced in a justice's court whenever it appeared in the answer of the defendant that the title to lands had come in question, that it had jurisdiction in matters of partition and proceedings to admeasure dower, " with other powers not enumerated." This was held sufficient. In In re Conner, supra, the fact that the court might abate a nuisance under proper proceed- ings was relied upon as giving jurisdiction. In this case, too, a further question arose as to whether it must be unlimited jurisdiction CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 93 with reference to certain classes of actions, and the court held that not only might the number of actions themselves be limited, but that a further limitation restricting the jurisdiction as to the amount involved in those cases in which the court might act was not fatal to the jurisdiction of the court for purposes of naturalization. The court said : But the act of Congress does not require that the courts shall have all the common-law jurisdiction which pertains to all classes of actions. It is enough that it has " common-law jurisdiction." In United States v. Powers, 1877, 14 Blatchf., 223, the city court of Yonkers was held to possess the requisite powers, since the State law had conferred — upon this court civil jurisdiction in all actions for the recovery of money when the amount recovered does not exceed $1,000. The court continued: It is manifest that by virtue of these statutory provisions the city court of Yonkers is authorized to exercise some common-law jurisdiction — that is, it has jurisdiction to hear and determine causes which were cognizable by the courts of law under what is known as the common law of England, although it has not jurisdiction of all such causes. It will be noticed, how- ever, that the statute of the United States does not require of courts author- ized to entertain applications for naturalization that they shall have all the jurisdiction possessed by any court of law. If the court may exercise any part of that jurisdiction, it is within the language of the statute and within its meaning as well. In People v. McGowan, 1875, 77 111., 644, the court held, overrul- ing the earlier case of Knox County v. Davis, 1872, 63 111., 405, that the limited common-law jurisdiction of the criminal court of St. Louis was sufficient, and suggested as among the common-law powers of the court the power to issue writs of habeas corpus, to administer oaths, take and certify recognizances, and to exercise all the powers of an examining magistrate. The matter has quite recently been before the Federal courts in United States v. Lehman, 1889, 39 Fed., 49, and the question was raised whether or not the fact that the jurisdiction was entirely con- ferred by statute prevented the same from being considered common- law jurisdiction within the statute. The court said: The jurisdiction of all the courts in this and other States is defined with greater or less particularity by statute, and in that sense their jurisdiction is statutory. But. as is well known, certain courts in this, as well as in other States, have power to punish offenses that existed at common law and to enforce private rights and to redress private wrongs recognized by the common law, and in the exercise of that power their action is governed by the prin- ciples, rules, and usages of the common law in so far as they have not been modified or abolished by statute. Courts of this description are usually termed " courts of common-law jurisdiction " to distinguish them from other inferior tribunals organized to enforce local or municipal regulations or rights and duties not recognized by the common law. * * * Congress intended to confer the power of naturalization on all courts of record of the several States that have power to administer justice under and in accordance with that system of jurisprudence known as the common law. In re Conner, 39 Cal., 98. Tried by such test, the court of criminal correction has power to naturalize aliens. This expression has been reaffirmed in the recent case of Levin v. United States, 1904, 128 Fed., 826, in which the authorities are col- lected and examined. 94 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. However, some courts have seemed to reach different results. In ex parte Tweedy, 1884, 22 Fed. Kep., 84, the question was whether the probate court of Shelby County was authorized to take a declara- tion of intention. Here, as in United States v. Lehman, the powers of the court were entirely statutory, the statute having conferred on the court concurrent jurisdiction for " the allotment of dower," " original jurisdiction over bastardy and bastards," and " concurrent jurisdiction for the partition or sale of estates." In his opinion, Hammond, J., reasoned that the State legislature had recognized three sources of law — the common law, the English statute law, and the acts of assembly. He then declared that the powers specified as belonging to the court in question, though very ancient, were given to the courts in England by express statute; therefore, he reasoned, they came within the heading English statute law as recognized by their legislature, and were not properly part of the common law. And this being established, it followed, he argued, that courts exer- cising these powers only were not exercising common-law jurisdic- tion within the meaning of the Federal statute. It would seem that, although the court's argument may be technically sound, it can not be considered when judged by the great weight of authority, as in accord with the spirit of the statute." In Ex parte McKenzie, 1897, 51 South Carolina, 244, 246, an alien applied for naturalization to the supreme court of the State. After considerable discussion, the court decided it did not possess the neces- sary jurisdiction, and based its decision upon the following line of reasoning: That while the court had power, under the authority of the legislature, to issue certain prerogative writs, its principal work was to hear and determine, appeals in cases of chancery and to cor- rect " errors at law " under statutory regulation, which was not com- mon-law jurisdiction in the contemplation of the statute. To an insistent counsel, who, contended that the court exercised common- law jurisdiction, the court said : While it is true that this court may exercise common-law jurisdiction in certain cases, or, to speak more correctly, may apply the principles of the com- mon law to cases which fall within its jurisdiction as denned by the constitu- tion and laws of this State, it is not true that this court has common-law jurisdiction in any case which parties may desire to bring before it. It would seem that this decision is directly against that of United States v. Lehman, supra, and that the latter more nearly corresponds to the legislative intent. Indeed, in the recent case of Levin v. United States (1904), 63 U. S. C. C. A, 476, the court to establish proper jurisdiction relied upon the facts, first, that the court, by statute, had appellate powers in certain specified cases, and, secondly, that it might issue the prerogative writs of habeas corpus, quo war- ranto, mandamus, certiorari, " and other remedial writs,". which the court considered common-law writs, and so involving common-law jurisdiction. The recent statute of 1906 provides that all courts having "juris- diction in actions at law or equity or law and equity in which the amount in controversy is unlimited shall have power to naturalize aliens." While, as is obvious, this extends the powers to courts in a See the remarks of Sandborn, circuit judge, in Levin v. United States (1904), 63 U. S. C. C. A., 476, 483. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 95 chancery, and so would include such a court, for instance, as was in question in Ex parte McKenzie, supra, it requires that the amount in controversy be unlimited, and so would exclude the court under consideration in United States v. Power, supra. The statute leaves open the questions of partial jurisdiction, both in law and in equity. G. Enumeration of courts. — It is obvious from the cases collected above that in every case, to determine whether or not a court has power to naturalize, it will be necessary to examine the powers of the particular court and to go to the statute which created it to learn the extent of its jurisdiction. The following courts have, however, been held to possess the requisite authority: City courts — Lexington city court, Morgan v. Dudley, 1857, 18 B. Mon., 693 ; city court of Yoii- kers, United States v. Power, 1877, 14 Blatchf., 223; city court of Savannah, Headman v. Rose, 1879, 63 Ga., 458. Police courts — Ex parte Gladhill, 1844, 8 Met., 168; State v. Whitemore, 1870, 50 N. H., 245. Criminal court of St. Louis — People v. McGowan (overruling Knox County v. Davis, 1872, 63 111., 405 contra) ; United States v. Lehman, 1889, 39 Fed., 49. County courts— In re Conner, 1870, 39 Cal., 98 ; People v. Pease, 1858, 30 Barb., 589 ; Ex parte Burkhardt, 1856, 16 Tex., 470 ; People v. Sweetman, 1857, 3 Park. Crim., 358 ; Beardstown v. Virginia, 1876, 81 111., 541 ; United States v. Severino, 1903, 125 Fed., 949; court of common pleas, Beavins, petitioner, 1856, 33 N. H., 89; Portier v. Le Roy, 1794, 1 Teates (Pa.), 371; the marine court of the city of New York, Mills v. McCabe, 1867, 44 111., 194; the court of appeals of St. Louis, Levin v. United States (1904), 63 U. S. C. C. A., 476; district court, Crnesus Mining, etc., Co. v. Colorado Land, etc., Co. (1884), 19 Fed., 78; Ex parte McKenzie, 1897, 51 S. C, 244, held that a supreme court had no authority to naturalize; and Ex parte Tweedy, 1884, 22 Fed., 84, held the same with reference to a probate court. As suggested, the jurisdiction of each court must be examined be- fore its powers as to matters of naturalization can be determined, and any court, whatever its name, that has the power may naturalize aliens. Levin v. United States (1904), 128 Fed., 826. D. Capacity in which the State courts act. — Not a little discussion has been had on the question as to the capacity in which the State courts act when proceeding under the authority of the Federal stat- ute in matters of naturalization. On this question, as on the ques- tion of the meaning of the term " Common-law jurisdiction," there are two lines of authority. In People v. Sweetman, 1857, 3 Park. Cr., 358, Bacon, J., stated: On the first point T entertain no doubt that the county court has jurisdiction to naturalize aliens. The act of Congress adopts every State court as its agent to do this service that is a court of record and has a common-law jurisdiction and a seal and a clerk. In the same case Pratt, J., said: Without attempting to examine the question in regard to the power of the Federal Government to confer such jurisdiction upon State courts and magis- trates, it seems to me quite clear that, in entertaining such proceedings, they are exclusively under the laws of the United States, and should be deemed quoad hoc courts of the United States. Freedman, J., in In re Christern, 1878, 43 N. Y. Sup. Ct. (11 Jones & Spencer), 523, 527, adopts the language of Pratt, J., as given above. 96 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION", ETC. In In re Ramsden 1857, 13 How. Pr., 429, 435, Hoffman, -J., used practically the same language as used by Bacon, J., above. He said: Congress adopts the State tribunals as the agents to exercise the power as they would have performed it before. The concurrence of the State legisla- tures, expressed or fairly implied, adds the sanction of the State to this delega- tion of power. Whether such tribunals are bound to act may admit of contro- versy. That their acts are lawful, if they do so, seems undeniable. And see, in general, the earlier case of Stephens, Petitioner, 1855, 4 Gray, 559. Other courts have held in effect directly opposite, Rump v. Com- monwealth, 1858, 30 Pa. St., 475, and the theory behind their rul- ings seems based upon the proposition that until Congress acted the State courts had power to naturalize aliens — and this jurisdiction has never been taken away. * * * And although such cases arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States, yet, because these are part of the law of the land, and merely give the rule for the exercise of our admitted State functions, our State courts may entertain this jurisdiction. In State v. Whittemore, 1870, 50 N. H., 245, the court had before it and examined both Rump v. Commonwealth, supra, and People v. Sweetman, supra, and after examining both cases decided to fol- low the former. All these decisions were referred to in the Supreme Court of the United States in In re Loney, 1889, 134 U. S., 372, 376, and while the point involved in those cases was not before the Su- preme Court, Mr. Justice Gray, in delivering his opinion, did advert to them and in a way give them his sanction. The question has usually arisen in proceedings for the punishment of perjury com- mitted in connection with some of the naturalization papers of an alien, the point being whether a State court might punish such per- jury, or whether it could be punished only in the Federal courts. These cases are collected in the notes below, from which it appears that decisions are both ways, with the latest case standing for pun- ishment by the State." It is, however, proper to refer specially to one recent decision in wich the question has received very elaborate consideration, United a Holding that perjury committed with reference to naturalization proceed- ings is punishable in the State courts, see State v. Whittemore, 1870, 50 N. H., 245; Rump v. Commonwealth, 1858, 30 Pa. St., 475 (both sanctioned in In re Loney, 1889, 134 U. S., 372, 376). Holding that it is punishable in the State courts only, see United States v. Severino. 1903, 125 Fed., 949. Holding that it is not punishable in the State courts, see People v. Sweetman, 1857, 3 Park. Cr., 358. Holding that it is punishable in the Federal courts, see United States v. Walsh, 1884, 22 Fed., 644; United States v. Lehman, 1889, 30 Fed., 49; United States v. Jones, 1877, 14 Blatchf., 90 ; United States v. Bui-lev, id., 01 ; United States v. Power, id., 223. For declarations that it is immaterial, that it may be punished by both State and Federal authorities, see State v. Whitte- more, supra ; Rump v. Commonwealth, supra. One is not guilty of perjury within the statute who swears to an extradicial paper; State v. Helle, 1834, 2 Hill (S. C), 200 (where the applicant swore falsely to his own residence, the statute providing that such oath should not be evidence of the applicant's residence) ; United States v. Grottkau, 1887, 30 Fed., 672 (same point). On the question of the power of the Federal Government to punish for fraud in connection with the proceedings for naturalization, see United States v. Tynen, 1870, 11 Wall., 88; and concerning Federal punishment for the sale ef certificates, see United States v. Ragozzini, 1892, 50 Fed., 923 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 97 States v. Severino, 1903, 125 Fed., 949, where, after an exhaustive examination of the authorities and the principle, the court said : It is concluded that State courts while entertaining jurisdiction in naturaliza- tion proceedings remain State courts, and that perjury committed by a witness in such proceeding is punishable by the sovereignty whose justice it offends (that is, the State court), and that the Federal court can not entertain juris- diction in the absence of a Federal statute conferring it. The court expressly declined to examine the theory " whereby Congress was able to permit the State courts to share with the Fed- eral courts jurisdiction in matters of naturalization." But whatever the capacity in which the State courts act while naturalizing aliens, it seems entirely clear that they are beyond co- ersion by the Federal Government. In Stephens Petitioner, supra, Shaw, C. J., delivering the opinion, said : These powers [to naturalize] given to State courts are therefore naked powers which impose no legal obligation on courts to assume and exercise them, and such exercise is not within their official duty or their oath to support the Constitution of the United States. But whatever may be the authority of Congress to require the performance of duties by State courts, magistrates and officers not affecting the organization of the National Government or not expressly provided for by the Constitution (respecting which there may be some doubt), it is well established that such courts and magistrates may, if they choose, exercise the powers thus conferred by Congress unless prohibited by State legislation. The same principle was laid down by Judge Simpson in Morgan v. Dudley, supra. He said : When, however, we admit that Congress can not authoritatively confer ju- dicial powers on State courts we only mean that Congress can not compel them to entertain jurisdiction in any case or to perform any judicial act. But we do not mean that Congress can not empower them to perform any judicial act to which they are competent and for the performance of which they have an adequate inherent jurisdiction. And in Rushworth v. Judges of Hudson Pleas, 1895, 58 N. J. Law, 97, Van Sycle, J., after an examination of the early authorities, con- cludes that the doctrine is well founded that Congress can not com- pel a State court to entertain jurisdiction in any case, including that of naturalizing aliens. And see State v. Penny, 1850, 10 Ark., 621 ; Beavins Petitioner, 1856, 33 N. H, 89, 94; and In re Ramsden, supra. Moreover, the States have considerable power over their own courts in questions relating to naturalization. For instance, it is held that they may indicate certain courts as those proper to exer- cise the jurisdiction conferred by Federal statute. In Beavins Petitioner, supra, a law restricting the powers as to naturalization to the court of common pleas was held to be entirely proper and within the power of the State legislature. In Gilroy Petitioner, 1895, 88 Me., 199, a law providing that no courts except the supreme, judicial, and superior courts should entertain jurisdiction over the naturalization of aliens was declared a legitimate exercise of the leg- islative power in this matter, and in State v. Whittemore, supra, the court uses the following language : The question now presented must depend exclusively on the construction to be given to this act of Congress. The State legislature may prohibit a State court, which comes within the class of tribunals described in the United States act, from exercising jurisdiction in naturalization cases. H. Doc. 326, 59-2 7 98 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. Further, not only may the State indicate the courts that shall exer- cise the jurisdiction, but it may designate the time within which it may be exercised. For instance, a statute providing that courts should not naturalize aliens " within thirty days next preceding any national, State, municipal, general, special, local, or charter election," was held to be a proper exercise of legislative power. Rushworth v. Judges, supra. On the other hand, it is equally clear that the State court may not confer jurisdiction. In State v. Whittemore, supra, the court said : But the State can not confer that jurisdiction on any tribunal which does not come within the terms of the United States statute. All statutes of this State attempting to confer this power on the police court of Nashua must, therefore, be laid out of the case, the solitary question being whether that court has this power under the United States statute. And in In re Eamsden, Hoffman, J., declared that — These statutes can not be considered as conferring a power to naturalize, which I hold the State legislatures are incompetent, even by the most explicit words, to bestow. On this point there seems to be a practical unanimity of opinion. Section III. — Requirements for naturalization. A. WHO MAY BE NATURALIZED. The earliest statutes provided for the naturalization of free white persons, and this was substantially the law until the adoption of the fourteenth amendment and the passage of legislation connected with it, when it was by express terms made to include the negroes. A number of questions have arisen, however, as to the meaning of the statute, and under the rights of citizenship of individuals the fol- lowing races have been determined: (a) Indians — Early status. — Our earliest naturalization law pro- vided that an alien to be naturalized must be a free white person, and this was substantially the requirement until after the civil war. The fourteenth amendment did not in terms include Indians, and the act of 1866 expressly excluded them when not taxed. Thus by early statutes Indians may not become citizens. A recent decision in Alaska' (In re Burton, 1900, 1 Alaska, 111) confirmed this by decid- ing (what is, indeed, obvious) that an Indian is not a " free white person or an alien of African nativity or African descent," and that, therefore, unless there were some special legislation oil the matter, an Indian could not be naturalized as a citizen of the United States, the Indian in this case being a native of British Columbia who had emigrated into the United States. Citizenship has, however, in many cases been conferred on Indians by treaty entered into with the tribe itself or by a foreign govern- ment — e. g., treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. For reference to such treaties see Part I, Chapter I, section 1, A. Moreover, as there indi- cated, Congress has at different times passed statutes which provide that upon an individual Indian's forsaking his tribal relationships, habits, and customs, and adopting civilized methods of life he shall be considered a citizen. See (in addition to references given above) act of May, 1890, section 43 (26 Stat. L.) ; act of February, 1887, CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 99 secton 3 (24 Stat. L.) ; act of August, 1888 (25 Stat. L.). The fact is, Congress exercises complete control over Indians and Indian affairs, and so may legislate in accordance with or opposition to the generally accepted laws on the matter of citizenship." (b) Africans. — JSfo question can be raised under the early laws as to the right of foreign-born Africans to become citizens. The act of 1790 provided that to be naturalized the alien must be " a free white person." The repealing act of 1795 had the same provision as did the acts of 1802, 1804, 1824, and 1828. The act of 1870 extended natu- ralization " to aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent." Section 2169, Eevised Statutes, provides — The provisions of this title shall apply to aliens (being free white persons, and to aliens) of African nativity and to persons of African descent. This was not repealed by designation in the recent statute of 1906^ and inasmuch as it is not inconsistent with the general provisions of that statute it would seem that the general repealing clause as to matters inconsistent would not affect it. Therefore, by statute, ne- groes may to-day be naturalized. Moreover, the fourteenth amendment declared, section 1 — All persons bom or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the juris- diction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they 1 reside.* Thus by legislation and constitutional amendment the African stands, with reference to naturalization, on the same footing as " aliens, being free white persons." (c) Chinese. — The statutory provisions already given, providing that for naturalization, with the one exception of Africans, the alien must be a free white person, has been held to exclude Chinese from naturalization. The earliest case in which the question arose was in In re Ah Yup, 1878. 5 Sawy., 155, 159, where the court went into a discussion of the meaning of white person, as used in the naturalization laws, and decided that it could not be used in so comprehensive a way as to include the Mongolian race. In reaching this conclusion he exam- ined, not only scientific works on ethnology, but the debates in Con- gress concerning the naturalization act. He thus concludes this examination : Thus, whatever latitudinnrian construction may otherwise have been given to the term "white person," it is entirely clear that Congress intendtd by this legislation to exclude Mongolians from the right of iiatunilijyititm. I am therefore of the opinion that a native of China, of the Mongolian race, is not a white person within the meaning of the act of Congress. In the year following the result seems to have been reached in a case decided by Choate, J., in the United States circuit court for As to the nature of the so-called naturalization laws passed by Congress with reference to the Indians, it is of interest to mte that in United States v. Rhodes, I860, 1 Abb. U. S., 45, the court remarked : " To make one of domestic birth a citizen is not naturalization." 6 The courts have repeatedly declared that the fourteenth amendment con- ferred citizenship upon emancipated negroes. See Strouder v. West Virginia, 1879, 100 U. S., 303; Virginia v. Rives, id.. 313: Ex parte Virginia, id.. 33!); "Matter of Turner, 1867, 1 Abb. U. S., 84 ; United States v. Canter. 1870. 2 Bond., 389; United States v. Petersburg ( — ). 1 Hughes, 493; Hall v. Decuir, 1877. 95 U. S., 485. 508; Anthony v. Halderman, 1871, 7 Kans., 50; Barney v. State, 1872, 48 Ala., 195. 100 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. New York, July, 1879, on Charles Miller's application. This case appears never to have been reported, but is commented upon in an article by Alexander Porter Morse, " Citizenship by naturalization," in the American Law Eegister for November, 1879, page 673. Mr. Morse states, however, that he has — been informed that Yung Wing, of the Chinese embassy at Washington, and other natives and subjects of the Emperor had been previously naturalized. Since In re Ah Yup the courts seem universally to have accepted the views there taken. In 1878 a Nevada court had reached the same result, and that, too, without the Ah Yup case being before it. But the whole question was, however, put beyond judicial determination by the Congressional act of 1882, which provided, section 14 — That hereafter no State court or court of the United States shall admit Chinese to citizenship ; and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed. The case in Sawyer has been followed quite recently in In re Hong Yen Chang, 1890, 84 Calif., 163, in which the court refused to recog- nize a certificate of naturalization granted to a Chinaman by a New York court, the court declaring that the certificate was void on its face. A Federal court in 1895, in In re Gee Hop. 1895, 71 Fed., 274, reached the same result with reference to a certificate of naturaliza- tion granted by a court in New Jersey. The principle that a Mongolian may not become a citizen of the United States has also been recognized in the cases cited and dis- cussed above under the heading " Naturalization by birth where the parents may not become citizens." (d) Japanese. — By a parity of reasoning the courts have refused to recognize natives of Japan as within the expression of the natur- alization laws. The earliest case is that of In re Saito, 1894, 62 Fed. Bep., 126, 128, in which it was declared that the Japanese,' like the Chinese, belong to the Mongolian race, and therefore that — whether this question is viewed in the light of Congressional intent, or of the popular or scientific meaning of " white persons," or of the authority of adju- dicated cases, the only conclusion I am able to reach, after careful considera- tion, is that the present application must be denied. The same question" has very recently been before the supreme court of Washington, one Takuji Yamashita, a native of Japan, having applied for admission as an attorney and counselor at law in the courts of that State. The court citing and relying upon In re Saito, supra, reached the same result. (e) Burmans.— la In re Po, 1894, 28 N. Y. Supp., 383, 384, one San C. Po, an alien native of British Burma, applied for naturaliza- tion. In deciding that such a person was not within the meaning of the naturalization law, the court said : Burmese are Malays and under modern ethnological subdivisions are Mon- golians, and are not, therefore, within the strict letter of the act of 3882, which prohibited the admission of Chinese to citizenship, for one can be a Mongolian and yet not be a Chinaman ; but the petitioner falls squarely within the provision of section 21G9 of the United States Revised Statutes which limits naturalization to free white persons and to persons of African nativity and of African descent, for he is certainly neither. It 'is hardly worth while to cite authorities. (/) Hawaiians. — In the one case that seems to have arisen on the ' point whether or not a native of the Sandwich Islands might become ,^ v 127 otf. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATBIATION, im a naturalized citizen of the United States the court held Vha^he^ ^ could not. The general line of reasoning adopted by the couSt^feftjji \&y that of the earlier case of Ah Yup, supra, the court having thTrtr" " case before it. In the decision considerable weight was given to the fact that the applicant did not appear sufficiently to understand the principles of the Government of the United States to justify his naturalization. (g) Alien enemies. — The act of 1798 provided that — No alien who shall be a native, citizen, denizen, or subject of any nation or state with whom the United States shall be at war at the time of his applica- tion shall be then admitted to become a citizen of the United States. This was repealed by the act of 1802, but the latter law contained a similar provision. This law was enforced when the war of 1812 was declared, and two decisions were rendered under it. The first, Ex parte Overington, 1812, 5 Binney, 571, was decided on December 28. It appeared that the father of the petitioner, a subject of Great Britain, had reached the United States on October 10, 1807; he had reported himself and the petitioner, then and still a minor, in conformity with the second section of the act of Congress of the 14th of April, 1802. He then resided in the State of Pennsyl- vania and so continued until the 1st of October, 1809, when he died. The son, conceiving himself to be entitled to naturalization under the provisions of the act of March, 1804, which declared 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 pursued all 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 privileges as such upon taking the oaths prescribed by law, applied now for a naturalization. The court held, Yates, J., dis- senting, that inasmuch as the father himself could not if living be naturalized, it was not possible for the son to be given rights of citizenship, the court relying on the fact that under the conditions he was an alien enemy. The effects of this decision were, however, overcome by the act passed July, 1813, by which it was enacted that — Persons resident within the United States or the Territories thereof on the 18th day of June in the year 1812, who had before that day made a declara- tion according to law of their intentions to become citizens of the United States, * * * or were on that day entitled to become citizens without mak- ing such declaration, may be admitted to become citizens thereof, notwith- standing they shall be alien enemies, at the times and in the manner prescribed by the laws heretofore passed on that subject In October, 1813, the case of Ex parte Newman, 1813, 2 Gall., 11, a second question arose, whether an alien, a subject of Great Britain, could file his declaration preparatory to naturalization, the act of July, 1813, being relied upon. The court said : That act enables persons, who before the war had made the preparatory declaration, to become citizens in the same manner as if war had not inter- vened, but it confers no privileges on other persons. The petitioner, therefore, can not exempt himself from the general disability. . These questions obviously could not have arisen since that time until our recent conflict with Spain, and during that period they do riot seem to have come up. 102 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. (h) Married women. — -The question as to whether or not the wife of an alien should be naturalized, her husband himself not being a citizen, seems not to have been directly before the court. The re- ports do contain instances of the naturalization of married women, one of the earliest being that of Ex parte Marianne Pic, 1806, 1 Cranch C. C, 372, but the decision covers but one line, and it does not appear whether or not the husband lived in America or was him- self a citizen or contemplating naturalization. The second case is that of Priest v. Cummings. 1837, 16 Wend., 617, in which it ap- peared that the plaintiff, a British subject, married a naturahborn citizen of the United States, with whom she lived from 1802, the date of the marriage, until 1832, the date of his death. The plaintiff took out papers of naturalization on October 16, 1829. The court held that such naturalization was effective and said : It will not be denied that Congress possess the power to naturalize femes covert, even against the consent of their husbnnds; and the language used by that body could not well be made more comprehensive — " any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States," etc. * * * The practice, I believe, has been universal to admit femes covert to citizenship upon application. It does not appear in the case, however, that the husband in this case was unwilling. The same case was up on appeal in 20 Wend., 238, 1838, in which the holding of the lower court on the question of citizenship was affirmed. In Brown v. Shilling, 1856, 9 Md., 74, the court declared that there was nothing in the naturalization acts that should be construed to exclude females from the right of citizenship by naturalization. In the particular case the woman in question had been naturalized during her widowhood. In 1887 the question was referred to by Fields, circuit justice, in passing upon the question whether or not a declaration of intention to become a citizen might be taken at a private residence, such having been the course pursued with reference to Emilie Sharlotte Langtry, a subject of the Queen of Great Britain. In declaring that such a declaration was inoperative, the court made a statement as follows : Note by the court. — It is stated in the public journals that Mrs. Langtry is not a feme sole, and that her husband is living in England, and a subject of the Queen. If this be so, the question will arise on her application for final naturalization papers, whether she can be naturalized in this country. No per- son can be a citizen of two countries; and the wife is by law a citizen of her husband's country. (In re Langtry, 1887, 31 Fed., 879, 880.) B. RESIDENCE. (a) Persons who are of age. — The preliminary question in a dis- cussion of this topic is what shall be considered to be the residence of one applying for naturalization. The matter has received con- siderable attention in two New York cases — In re Hawley, 1866, 1 Daly, 531, and In re Scott, 1848, id., 534. (See infra for a discussion of the latter.) In the case of Hawley the applicant came to this country when 13 years old, resided here until he was 23, when he declared his in- tention to become a citizen. He then went to Ireland in consequence of the illness of his father, expressing, however, to his friends and acquaintances his intention to return and live in this country. He CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 103 remained in Ireland seven years, when he returned to the United States, in 1864, lived a little more than a year in the State of New York, and applied for naturalization. It appeared in the evidence that Hawley was an unmarried man and a mechanic working at his trade wherever he found employment; that while absent in Ireland he worked at his trade. In delivering its opinion the court said : This last circumstance [the working at his trade], coupled with his long absence, is decisive upon the question of residence. There are few ques- tions, that come up for the consideration of judicial tribunals which it is more difficult to define than what will constitute a residence. The best defini- tion that I have ever been able to find, or which my own experience could suggest — and I have had a great deal — is that to be deduced from the Roman law — that a man's residence is the place where his family dwells or which he makes the chief seat of his affairs and interests. (Dig. 50, Tit. I, 10. 20. 27, 203; Code, tit. 39. 7.) Hawley was a native of Ireland. His parents lived there, and while he was there following his calling of a mechanic it was, in the words of this comprehensive definition, the chief seat of his affairs and interests. He lost his residence here and was, up to the time of his return, a resident of Ireland. The court refused to grant papers of naturalization. In In re An Alien, about 1842, Fed. Cas., 201a, Betts, district judge, in passing upon the residence of one who had been a sailor, said: Residence, in its legal acceptation, is the place of the party's home or domi- cile, and not merely the spot occupied by him for the time being. This may be constantly varying, but every change of abode is not regarded as consti- tuting a new residence without the accompaniment of an intention to abandon the former with the purpose of taking up another. It is not within the purview of this report to enter upon the dis- cussion of domicile, but the above statements, taken with those that follow in the discussion of the residence of sailors, will sufficiently indicate the general attitude of the courts on this matter. Elabo- rate discussions of the question of domicile will be found in White v. Brown, 1848, 1 Wall., jr., 217; Guier v. O'Daniel, 1806, 1 Binney, 349 note, and Desesbats v. Berquier, 1808, id., 346; Abbington v. North Bridgewater, 1839, 23 Pick., 170. From the earliest statutes there has been some more or less defi- nitely expressed provision for the continuance of residence within the jurisdiction of the United States during a certain period. The act of 1790 provided for the naturalization of one " who shall have re- sided within the limits and the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years." The act of 1795 required that the court ad- mitting such an alien should be " satisfied that he has resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States five years." By the act of 1798 the applicant must satisfy the court that he had " resided within the United States fourteen years." The same lan- guage was used in the act of 1802, except that the period of residence was changed. In the act of 1804 the language was changed to read " has continued to reside." By section 12 of the act approved March 3, 1813, which act pro- vided for " the regulation of seamen on board the public and private vessels of the United States," it was declared 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 five years next preceding his admission as aforesaid have resided within the United States, without being at any time during the said five years out of the territory of the United States. 104 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATBIATION, ETC. A later act, however, approved June 26, 1848, repealed the words " without being at any time during the said five years out of the ter- ritory of the United States." Several cases arose prior to the act of 1813 in which the question of continuity of residence was in issue. In Ex parte Walton, 1804, 1 Cranch C. C, 186, the affidavit with reference to residence declared that the applicant " has resided within the United States upward of six years ; that during that period he was absent a short time upon business, but left his family in the United States." The court re- jected this application " because the residence did not appear to be a continued residence and the term of absence was indefinite."" 1 In Ex parte Sanderson, 1804, 1 Cranch C, 219, it appeared from the affidavit of one Hodgson that the applicant came to America in October, 1797, and continued to reside here until 1800, when he went to England, returning in April, 1801. In the fall of 1801 he went to England again and returned in 1802. He seems thus to have been out of the country about a total of two years out of seven. The court refused to admit him because he had not continued to reside according to the act of 1804. s In Ex parte Pasqualt it was alleged in the affidavit that the appli- cant had resided upward of five years in Alexandria, and that during that time he sailed from the port of Alexandria in an American vessel as a mariner. No question was made as to the continuity of the residence. Only one case has been found in which the stringent rule expressed in the statute of 1813 was brought into operation. In that case, Ex Earte Paul, 1844, 7 Hill, 56, it appeared that Alexander Paul, an alien orn in Ireland, applied for naturalization as a citizen. He had come to the United States in July of 1836, and he had since that time resided here. The only question as to his naturalization arose out of the following facts : In September, 1843, the applicant left the city of Rochester to go to Ogdens- burgh, St. Lawrence County, by way of the lake. The steamboat in which he traveled stopped about ten minutes at Kingston, Upper Canada, to take in passengers, during which time the applicant stepped upon the wharf or dock, where he remained some two or three minutes, and then returned to the boat and proceeded to Ogdensburg. The court, referring to the strict language of the statute of 1812, said: The leading object of the provision was undoubtedly to make the alien's right depend upon the simple enquiry whether he has in fact remained within the United States during the whole live years next preceding his application, and thus exclude all enquiry as to the intention and purpose of his departure. In the present case the applicant has not complied with the condition upon which his right to become a citizen depends, and his application must, therefore, be rejected. In the case of In re Hawley, 1866, 1 Daly, 531, the court refers to a case (which seems never to have been reported, unless, indeed, the o It should be noted of this case, however, that " the court had also seen an- other affidavit, by the same deponent, stating that Walton last returned to the United States on the 20th day of May, 1804, which was inconsistent with the present affidavit." t> The decision might have gone off on another point, for it appeared that he had not made a previous declaration of his intent according to the act of 1802. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 105 court has in mind and is confused over Ex parte Paul) , the facts of which he stated as follows : It was decided in this court that a person visiting the falls of Niagara, who had crossed to the Canadian side to look at the falls from that point of view, had been out of the territory of the United States, and could not be naturalized until the expiration of five years thereafter. The repeal of the act of 1813 by the act of 1848 revived the previ- ous provisions of the statute of 1804 which required that an applicant had " continued to reside." Two cases have passed upon the mean- ing of this provision. The first, In re Clark, 1854, 18 Barb., 444, was one in which the petitioner, with a great many others, applied for naturalization as a citizen of the United States. In common with the rest he had fur- nished no " proof of continuous residence within the United States." Commenting upon the repeal by the act of 1848 of the strict clause in the act of March 3, 1813, indicated above, the court said : The object of the amendment of 1848 was to allow seamen who were actually engaged on any of the public or private vessels of the United States, and thus in their business were necessarily beyond the limits of our territory, to avail themeslves of the naturalization laws ; but the person drawing the repealing clause made it general, instead of an exception in their favor. Whether Con- gress should n^t restore this provision, making an exception in favor of the seaman and soldier, it is not for me now to say, as I am inquiring only what the law is, that it may be administered correctly by this court. The court did not define what it understood by the phrase " con- tinuous residence," contenting itself by stating that proof of such resi- dence was necessary. In In re Hawley, supra, the facts of which are stated above, the absence was considered sufficiently to fall within the operation of the statute. The court said: If it had been merely a visit to see his parents, and he had returned to this country within what would be deemed a reasonable time, under the circum- stances, I should, in view of the intention he expressed when leaving, have regarded it as a continuing residence which had never been abandoned. But he was absent for seven years, and it appears that during a portion of that time he worked as a mechanic in Ireland, as he had done in this country. This last cir- cumstance, coupled with his loug absence, is decisive upon the question of residence. The court then expressed the views already quoted above. The net result of the cases seems to be that the courts require that a man's domicile shall never be changed, but that he himself may actu- ally go without the limits of the United States, providing he does not remain an unreasonable time. And see the cases below as to the absence of minors from their homes. But a word may be said in passing on the question of the term of absence. In Ex parte Walton, supra, the court objected to admitting the applicant to citizenship, the applicant having been absent from the country, on the ground, among others, that the term of absence was indefinite. It is not clear from the case, nor from the later ones, whether or not the term of absence should be set out. In Ex parte Pasqualt, supra, nothing was said as to the length of time the appli- cant had been absent from the United States, the affidavit stating that he had during the time sailed from the port of Alexandria. In Ex parte Sanderson, supra, an absence of two years was held fatal, while the limit seems to have been reached in the case of Ex parte Paul, 106 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATBIATION, ETC. supra, where less than ten minutes operated to break the continuity of the residence. For a case somewhat unique as to facts, and con- taining a good discussion, see In re Wrigley, 1831, 8 Wend., 134. In construing the term of residence two points must be kept in mind : First, the length of time that an applicant must reside within the jurisdiction of the United States before he may make his prelimi- nary declaration, and secondly, the length of time before a court will consider an application for his admission. First. Residence before making the declaratory oath. The act of 1790 contained no provision for the declaratory oath. The act of 1795 provided for a preliminary declaration, but computed it back- ward from the time of naturalization, the provision being that it must be " three years at least before his admission." The statute of 1798, which required a total residence for naturalization of fourteen years, provided that the applicant " shall have declared his intention to heroine, a citizen of the United States five years, at least, before his admission " (with certain exceptions specified). The act of 1802 required a preliminary declaration by the applicant " three years at least before' his admission." The act of 1824 changed the time to " two years before his admission," and this provision became incor- porated in the Revised Statutes of 1878, section 2165. First, where the language is " two years at least prior to his admission," and this is the period which was adopted in the act passed in 1906. But few cases involving this precise point have been found, and they are discussed in connection with the requirement of residence for minors. Second. Residence before taking out final papers. For this the statutes have always provided. The act of 1790 provided for a term of two years, one year at least to be within the State in which he applied for naturalization. In the act of 1795 this was increased to five years. The act of 1798 extended the period to fourteen years, with certain exceptions specified. The act of 1802, repealing all for- mer acts, reduced the period again to five years, and this provision was repeated in the act of 1813, and continued on down as the period, being incorporated in the Revised Statutes, section 2165-third, and section 2170. Section 2170 of the Revised Statutes expressed the requirement somewhat differently from the statement of 2165. Third. In section 2170 it was stated — No alien shall be admitted to become a citizen who has not for the continued term of five years next preceding his admission resided within the United States. As will be noted, the difference here consists in the fact that the term of residence is said to be continuous rather than the residence itself. The present requirement is found in section 4, which requires that the applicant — has resided continuously within the United States for five years at least and within the State or Territory in which such court is at the time held one year at least. A few cases are sufficient to show that the courts have followed the express statutory terms as to residence. In Doe ex. dem. O'Brien v. Woody, 1846, 4 McLean, 75, the question was raised as to whether or not under the statute of 1816 it was necessary to show five years' resi- dence on the part of one who had resided in the United States before 1802. It was decided that that was necessary. But in the later cases CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 107 of People v. Sweetman, 1857, 3 Parks. Crim., 358 et 376 ; In re Clark, 1854, 18 Barb., 444 ; and In re Hawley, 1866, 1 Daly, 531, it was ad- judged that there must be a residence of five years in order to entitle the applicant to naturalization. A different provision has been made in the cases of soldiers, sailors, and marines. A statute of 1862 provided that — any alien, of the age of twenty-one years and upward, who has enlisted, or may enlist, in the armies of the United States, either the regular or the volun- teer forces, and has been, or may be hereafter, honorably discharged, shall be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, upon his petition, without any previous declaration of his intention to become such ; and he shall not be required to prove more than one year's residence within the United States previous to his application to become such citizen. This was incorporated in the Revised Statutes of 1878, section 2166, and seems never to have been expressly repealed. It has been held that this statute did not include men enlisted in " the Marine Corps of the United States." In re Bailey, 1872, 2 Sawy., 200; Berry v. Hall, 1892, 6 New Mex., 643, and see People v. Riley, 1860, 15 Calif., 48. In 1872 an act was passed providing that — every seaman, being a foreigner, who declares his intention of becoming a citi- zen of the United States in any competent court, and shall have served three years on board of a merchant-vessel of the United States subsequent to the date of such declaration, may, on his application to any competent court, and the production of his certificate of discharge and good conduct during that time, together with the certificate of his declaration of intention to become a citizen, be admitted a citizen of the United States ; and every seaman, being a foreigner, shall, after his declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United States, and after he shall have served such three years, be deemed a citizen of the United States for the purpose of manning and serviug on board any merchant-vessel of the United States, anything to the contrary in any act of Congress notwithstanding ; but such seaman shall, for all purposes of pro- tection as an American citizen, be deemed such, after the filing of his declara- tion of intention to become such citizen. And this was incorporated as section 2174 of the Revised Statutes of 1878. Prior to the statute of 1872 the question of residence of sailors had been raised in a number of cases. The earliest noted is that of Ex parte Pasqualt, already cited, in which no question was made of the point that the applicant was a sailor. In the case of In re An Alien, about 1842, Fed. Cas., 201a, it appeared on the hearing for naturali- zation that the applicant had — for several years past * * * been a sailor, being constantly engaged in that employment except at short intervals between ending one voyage and going out upon another. These periods [were! passed at the house of his mother, he having no family of his own. The court held that such was continuous residence within the mean- ing of the statute of 1802. The strict provision of the statute of i813 was held to have no application to the petitioner, since when he came to the United States in the year 1'832 he was a minor, and by the statute of 1824 it was provided that persons in his position might be naturalized if they had " continued to reside " in the jurisdiction of the United States. The court construed the statute of 1824 as repeal- ing the statute of 1813 so far as minors were concerned, which thus left the statute of 1802 in force. 108 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. In the case Anonymous, 1846, Fed. Cas., 465, s. c. 4 N. Y. Leg. Obs., 98, it appeared that the applicant had deserted a British ship of war and enlisted on board an American frigate- in 1814, war then existing between the two nations. He continued to serve in the United States Navy throughout the war and for several years subse- quently. After leaving the Navy he had followed the seas constantly, sometimes in the merchant and at other times in United States service. In 1832 he filed his declaration of intention to become naturalized. He had acquired no residence in any port of the United States. The court held that these facts did not show such residence as the act of Congress required, on the ground that the residence must have its commencement within the territory of the country, and that had he such it might have regarded his service in the Navy and on board the merchant vessels as a continuous residence within the meaning of the statutes. It is not clear, however, how such could have been the effect under the plain language of the statute of 1813. In In re Scott, 1848, 1 Daly, 534, the court was called upon to con- strue, in the matter of residence, the meaning of the statutes re- lating to naturalization after the repealing act of June 26, 1848. The applicant, Scott, came to this country frojn England with his parents when he was 3 years of age and resided with them in the city of New York until their death, when he shipped, at the age of 17 j as a seaman from the port of New York on board an American vessel, and for seven years thereafter and up to the time that he ap- plied for naturalization he was continuously and exclusively em- ployed as a mariner in the merchant service of the United States. The question presented in the case was whether he had retained dur- ing those seven years the residence which he acquired in the city of New York. The court held that he could not be deemed to have abandoned his domicil while engaged in his vocation as a mariner upon the ocean, this view being enforced in the mind of the judge by the fact that Scott had sailed exclusively in American vessels, on the theory that — the vessels of a nation, whether public or private, partake of the attributes and, in a certain sense, are to be regarded as a part of the territory of the na- tion. While they are upon the high seas, and not within the limits of the ter- ritory of any foreign nation, they are under and subject to the jurisdiction of the country to which they belong [citing authorities], and this being the case, a seaman who has acquired a residence in the United States must be regarded as retaining that residence as long as he continues to serve in the public or private vessels of the country. While away fiom the place where his resi- dence was fixed, the ship, whether it is upon the ocean or in a foreign port, is his place of habitation. Its national character is denoted by its flag, and it must in such a case, for the purpose of residence, be regarded as a part of the territory of the nation. It is always difficult to lay down any general rule upon the subject of residence, but I think it may be said in reference to a seaman that if he is married, his residence is the place where his family dwells, and if he "has never been married, that it is the place where his domicil was fixed when he first went to sea as a mariner. The court concluded that Scott had resided in the United States during the last preceding five years. (See also In the matter of Bye, 1869, 2 Daly, 525.) So far as noted in the cases heretofore given, the seaman's service has been on board American vessels. A slightly different question, therefore, is presented in the case of In re Shaw, 1892, 2 Pa. Dist. Ct., 250. There the depositions taken on a rule to vacate and annul a decree of naturalization and rescind a certificate issued thereon CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 109 showed that the defendant was a mariner and engineer on board steamers; that in the year 1879 he was employed in England as an assistant engineer on board a steamer of Belgic registry, which was owned and operated by a Pennsylvania corporation. The steamer ran between Antwerp, Philadelphia, and New York, making alter- nate trips for the period of two years until 1881. The defendant .testified that the steamer was at Philadelphia in 1882, but he did not remember how many trips had been made while he was employed on board. The steamer had not been in the port of Philadelphia, nor had he, since 1882. He was employed, however, on a steamer plying between New York and Antwerp until 1883, when he was transferred to another steamer, which never ran to Philadelphia during the time he was employed on her. He remained on board this steamer for about five years, or until 1889, when he was trans- ferred to a fourth vessel, which ran between Antwerp and New York and never ran to Philadephia. He was at the time of the trial still employed on this ship. In his application for citizenship he gave as an address a place of appointment used by him at divers times when he came to the city. In 1882 he declared his bona fide intention to become a citizen of the United States, and, in 1886, took out papers of naturalization. Between the dates of his first and final papers the petitioner continued occasionally to come to Jersey City, N. J., had invested money in a building association, and was married in Brussels to a sister of an American whom he had met in Brooklyn, N. Y. ; that after his marriage he lived for a time with his wife in the State of New York, but since then his wife and children have resided in Antwerp, and when in that port he resided with them. The court said : The question to be determined is whether Shaw had such a residence within the United States for five years previous to his naturalization and for one year within the State of Pennsylvania as entitled him to become a citizen. The court held that there could be no doubt, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, that Shaw had renounced his allegiance to Great Britain, and that therefore he had no domicile or even residence in that country. That although on board a Belgian steamer, the latter was in the service of an American charterer; that he followed the sea, lived aboard the ship, and made himself temporarily more or less at home in the ports at which he arrived. Moreover, it could not be seriously contended that his residence was in Belgium for any purposes affecting the acquisition of citizenship, unless the purely negative one of depriving him of a residence elsewhere. It appeared that his family had resided in Antwerp — for economy, for the health of his wife and children, and for the convenience of meeting him when his ship came into that port, and that his intention is to move them to the United States. The court continued : Now, if this residence in Antwerp is of such a character as to prevent his becoming a citizen of any land other than Belgium, and being unaccompanied with the intention of becoming a Belgian, it has no virtue in preparing the way for Belgian citizenship; then, inasmuch aa his former status as a subject of the Queen of England has been renounced by him, we have before us a man with- out a country. It is true that where the intent to retain a former citizens-hip while dishonestly assuming a new one is made to appear, a revocation of the let- ters of naturalization would leave the pristine allegiance undisturbed ; yet where, as in this case, there is an express abandonment of the old ties, and nothing in the applicant's conduct or language inconsistent with this renunciation, why should 110 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. the law be stretched to convict him and his voucher of fraud because a mariner's precise residence is, apart from his own explanation, a difficult matter to fix. That explanation should be accepted in good faith, and only clear and satisfac- tory evidence should be admitted to rebut it. The definitions which define domicile or residence, while as important as they are subtle, need not be invoked here. A man's domicile is his home, and he can have but one ; and among many residences which he happens to enjoy, his domicile may, in a particular case, not be found, for he may never have given up a domicile once acquired, and yet may not have resided in the place of that domicile for an indefinite time past. For the purposes of naturalization it has never been held that an exclusive residence In the United States is necessary when the exigency of a man's vocation re ; quires him to reside in several places intermittingly. This is one of the cases where a man may make evidence for himself as to establish that he wishes to become a citizen, and that of the different places where he may from time to time abide, the United States, and therein the State of Pennsylvania, is the desig- nated residence of his choice, a choice so declared being, in the absence of in- consistent actions or statements, sufficiently proved by his mere declaration. It is therefore a question of intention, of bona fides, and in favor of the solemn protestation of such intention every presumption should be raised. Eule discharged. It will be noted here that the court makes the residence of the statute practically equivalent to domicile. The point has been raised as to whether or not service in the Navy was within the meaning of section 2174 of the Revised Statutes, which provided for the naturalization of seamen. In In re Gormly, 1880, 14 Phila., 211, the petitioner had enlisted in the Navy of the United States in 1874, and was honorably discharged from the serv- ice in 1878. He petitioned that he be permitted to become a citizen, apparently basing his application on the above-named section of the Revised Statutes. The court held that this act did not extend to the naval service. See also in matter of Stewart, 1868, 7 Robt., 635 ; In re Bailey, 1872, 2 Sawy., 200. In 1894 an act was passed which provided that any alien — ■ of the age of 21 years and upward, who has enlisted or may enlist in the United States Navy or Marine Corps, and has served, or may hereafter serve, five consecutive years in the United States Navy, or one enlistment in the United States Marine Corps, and has been or may hereafter be honorably dis- charged, shall be admitted to become a citizen of the United States upon his petition without any declaration of his intention to become such. Third. How residence is proved. The statute of 1790 made no provision for the proving of residence, although providing that the applicant should prove " to the satisfaction of such court that he is a person of good character." The act of 1795 provided that an alien might be admitted to become a citizen " on his declaring on oath or affirmation, in some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided two years at least within and under the jurisdiction of the same." By the act of 1798 the applicant must in his application " declare and prove to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction in the case that he has resided within the United States fourteen years at least." The act of 1802 specified that " the court admitting such alien shall be satisfied that he has resided within the United States five years at least," but provided, further, " that the oath of the applicant shall in no case be allowed to prove his residence." By the act of 1816, in section 2, which provided for the naturalization of certain persons without the necessity of a preliminary declaration, it was specified that the applicant should prove — to the satisfaction of the court that he was residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States before the 14th day of April, 1802, and has CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. Ill continued to reside within the same, or he shall not be so admitted. And the residence of the applicant within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States * * * shall be proved by the oath of affirmation of citizens of the United States, which citizens shall be named in the record as witnesses. The act of 1824 repealed the provisions quoted of the act of 1816, and required that the applicant prove to the satisfaction of the court his residence, with the further requirement that — the residence of "the applicant within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States, for at least five years * * * shall be proved by the oath or affirmation of citizens of the United States, which citizens shall be named in the record as witnesses. The act of 1862, with reference to soldiers honorably enlisted and discharged, merely required in terms that the applicant " prove more than one year's residence." The act of 1872, relating to seamen, made no special provision for the proof of his service (which was made equivalent to residence) other than " the production of a cer- tificate of discharge and good conduct during that time." The gen- eral provisions, therefore, of the act of 1824 remained in force until 1878, and were incorporated in the Revised Statutes of 1878, which provided, section 2165 : Third, that " the oath of the applicant shall in no case be allowed to prove his residence." Sixth [with reference to aliens residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States between the 18th dry of June, 1798, nnd the 18th day of June, 1812]. It must be proved to the satisfaction of the court that the applicant was residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States * * * and the residence of the applicant * * * must be proved by the oath of citizens of the United States, which citizens shall be named in the record as witnesses. Section 2166 practically reenacted the provisions of the act of July 17, 1862, with reference to seamen. In 1894 the act which provided for the naturalizing of men en- listed in the United States Navy or Marine Corps required that the court " be satisfied by competent proof of such person's service in and honorable discharge from the United States Navy or Marine Corps." By the terms of the recent act of 1C03 the petition is verified by the — affidavits of >at least two creditable witnesses, who are citizens of the United States, and who shall state in their affidavits that they have personally known the applicant to be a resident of the United States for a period of at least five years continuously. The sufficiency of proof offered has been before the courts in a number of cases. One of the earliest was that of Ex parte Tucker, 1802, 1 Cranch C. C, 89, in which the applicant offered a deposition of two parties, taken before a notary public, " stating that they have known him 'since the year 1793, in New York, and that he was a supercargo in their employ in the year 1795, and continued until 1798.' " The court declared that this deposition was insufficient within the provisions of the statute of 1795. In the case of Ex parte Walton. 1804, 1 Cranch C, C. 186, a resi- dence was sought to be established by an affidavit. No question seems to have been raised but that this was a proper method of establish- ing the residence, though the court objected to the matter stated in it. In Ex parte Sanderson, 1804, 1 Cranch C. C, 219, the court again recognized an affidavit of a third party as proper proof of residence, 112 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. though in this case objecting also to the statements made in the paper. In Ex parte Pasqualt, 1805, 1 Cranch C. C, 243, an affidavit as to residence was accepted without question. The question arose in State v. Helle, 1833, 2 Hill (S. C), 290, as to what force, if any, was to be given under the statute of 1802, which provided that in no case should the oath of the applicant be accepted to prove his residence to an affidavit made by the applicant himself with reference to his residence. The defendant had been indicted for perjury. It was held by the court that such oath being expressly excluded by the statute of 1802, was — merely voluntary and impertinent, as if a party filing a declaration in a court of common pleas should think proper to make oath of its truth. [The prisoner was therefore discharged.] And this view of the oath of the applicant as to his residence has been confirmed in the more recent case of United States v. Grottkau, 1887, 30 Fed., 672, the court there saying, after citing State v. Hecle: This is a case precisely in point upon the very question here in judgment, and J must say, as the court said in the case of State v. Helle, that I can not suppose, in the face of this clause, in the third section of the naturalization statute, that the oath of the defendant in relation to his residence was received by the court, or had any effect in support of his application to be admitted to citizenship. The court was not allowed, but was forbidden by the statute, to receive it. And I must presume that the court was controlled in its disposition of the application by the provisions of this statute, and therefore that this was an extrajudicial oath, one which was not required or authorized by the law re- lating to the naturalization of aliens. A different ruling was made as to the manner of proof in In re An Alien, 1845, 7 Hill, 137, the applicant having sought to establish the fact of residence by means of the usual affidavits. The court examined the matter with great care, and in the course of his opinion, after calling attention to the language of the statute of 1802, and par- ticularly to the proviso " that the oath of the applicant should in no case be allowed to prove his residence," continued as follows : This act does not in terms declare in what manner the court shall become satisfied of the residence of the applicant and of his good moral character and correct principles, but it leaves no room for doubt on the subject. As be- tween parties litigant their admissions and agreement may satisfy a court of the existence or nonexistence of material facts ; but in applications for naturali- zation there are no hostile parties who can adjust or establish anything by way of stipulation. The court can not take the mere statement of any person unsupported by an oath. Such a course would be unprecedented iu a court of justice ; and, beyond all question, upon the terms of this act alone the court would be bound to require legal evidence to establish all the facts upon which the judgment is finally to be rendered. The proviso declares that the oath of the applicant shall not be allowed to prove his residence. From this it is to be inferred that the residence is to be proved, and to be proved by the oath of some one other than the applicant him- self. * * * Undoubtedly the legislature may make ex parte affidavits competent evidence in any case, as they have done in various instances, by express enactment. But this only proves that, without such enactments, affidavits are inadmissible and can never be received. I have no difficulty iu holding that affidavits can not be received or read as evidence in any case upon which a court is to render a final judgment unless the legislature have declared in very unequivocal terms that such shall be their effect. If the present question, therefore, depended exclusively upon the act of 1802 affidavits ought not to be received as evidence. . But in 1816 "An act relative to evidence in cases of naturalization" was passed which provides that the fact of residence is to " be proved by the oath CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 113 or affirmation of citizens of the United States, which citizens shall be named in the record as witnesses ; " and when so " satisfactorily proved," the place or places where the applicant has resided must be stated in the record, with the names of the witnesses. (Act of 22 March, 1816, § 2, 6 Laws U. S., 23.) To the like effect is the act of May 24, 182S (8 Laws U. S., 132). These acts, in most respects, are declaratory of the previous law, as the residence must before have been proved by the oath of witnesses or a witness ; or, in other words, must be proved by legal testimony. But by these acts there must be witnesses : one alone is not enough ; and they must be citizens; not aliens, as they might have been under the act of 1802. I entertain no doubt, therefore, that affidavits can not be legally received in these cases, and that no court should ever read them, or hear them read, as evidence to prove the right of citizenship. Certain things are to be done in open court. (Act of April 14, 1802, § 1, sub. 2, 4) ; and of these the court has judicial notice. But in respect to other matters, as residence, good morals, and sound principles, they must be proved. I have supposed the oath of the applicant allowable as evidence for some of these purposes, but that ex parte affidavits can not be received for any purpose. The same view was maintained in People v. Sweetman, 1857, 3 Park. Cr., 358, in which the defendant was indicted for perjury and for swearing falsely to an affidavit as to the residence of a certain applicant for naturalization. Pratt, J., declared : The laws of Congress require the application to be made to the court ; and the proof of five years' previous residence must be taken in open court. It must also be common-law evidence, taken by the oral examination of the witness Previously prepared affidavits are not competent. * * * In this case there was no proof that any application was made to the court at all, or that the witness w;is ever sworn in open court, or that the court in any manner passed upon the matter. . The court, therefore, reversed the judgment of conviction ren- dered below. And see also the remarks of the court in In re Clark, 1854, 18 Barb., 444. From In. Towles, 1835, 5 Leigh, 743, where the certificate is declared impeachable if it seems to show that the formalities of naturalization were not complied with. The courts have also held that a certificate may be void on its face. The two principal cases on this point are In re Hong Yen Chang, 1890, 84 Cal., 163, and In re Gee Hop, 1895, 71 Fed. 274, in both of which cases certificates of naturalization had been, given to Chinamen. The question has also arisen, What, if any, presumption exists in favor of proceedings of naturalization? This received considerable attention in one of the cases last cited, In re Gee Hop, where the court declared that no presumption exists in favor of a judgment where the powers are special. And see also in this connection People v. Sweetman, 1857, 3 Parks Crim., 358, 376. C. METHOD OF PROVING NATURALIZATION. This point has already been covered to a considerable extent by the cases discussed in this section, but the following additional points may 7. be noted. It is laid down that " citizenship may be proved, like any j other fact, and is a question for the court and jury" to pass upon." Strickley v. Hill, 1900, 22 Utah, 257, 269. And, as shown above, it may be proved, or at least it may be inferred, from the general' circumstances or conditions surrounding a person. See Boyd v. Nebraska, supra, and cases cited in connection with it. In the North Noonday Mining Co. v. Orient Mining Co., 1880, 6 Sawy., 299, the court declared that for purposes of filing on a mining claim, citi- zenship might be proved by affidavit of the party himself. It is generally laid down, however, that naturalization may not be proved by parol. This seems to be the rule on which the courts generally act. Green's Son v. Salas, 1891, 31 Fed., 106; Belcher v. Farren, 1891, 89 Cal., 73; Slade v. Minor, 1817, 2 Cr. C. C, 139; Bode v. Trimmer, 1890, 82 Cal., 513; Miller v. Prentice, 1889, 82 Cal., 104, s. c. id., 571. Section 7. — Impeachment of naturalization proceedings. It is clear that naturalization proceedings may not be impeached for any of the defects discussed in the preceding section (a) What the record must contain, since they do not effect the validity of the record. However, there are matters for which the proceedings may be impeached, and in discussing this topic this distinction must be kept clearly in mind — the difference between an action in which the judg- ment will be that the naturalization proceedings are null and void, and that the certificate of naturalization be delivered up and can- celed, and those actions in which the citizenship of one of the parties or his privies is called into question more or less collaterally. A. WHO MAY IMPEACH. In Pintsch Compressing Co. v. Bergin, 84 Fed., 140, the rule now generally followed was laid down as follows, the question arising over the conclusiveness of a judgment of naturalization : The record thus ordered on the application of the respondent evidenced a solemn judicial judgment that she was entitled to receive and did thereby 132 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. receive from the United States the franchise of citizenship. Is anyone enti- tled to proceed for its rescission unless the United States themselves, or by their authorization? No precedent, no text writer, and no rule of law is cited which justifies us in answering this question affirmatively. The funda- mental principle that, in the absence of a 'statute of authorization, only the United States can proceed judicially to recall or rescind franchises granted by them, has peculiar force with reference to citizenship, as to which so great a variety of interests, political and individual of high importance is concerned that the jurisdiction of inquiry should be especially fixed and limited. Even when proceeding diplomatically and in their relations with foreign powers the United States reserve to themselves the exclusive right to question the natu- ralization proceedings of their local tribunals. The earlier case of United States v. Norsch, 1890, 42 Fed., 417, had acted in accordance with this principle, and see also United States v. Gleason, 1897, 78 Fed., 396. The decisions do not definitely determine or enumerate the officers of the United States who may bring such an action. The action has been sustained as proper where it was brought at the instance of the immigration commissioners. United States v. Kornmehl, 1898, 89 Fed., 10. The case of In re Langtry, 1887, 31 Fed., 879, is of peculiar interest in this regard. In that case, as already set forth, the court acted on its own motion in impeaching the validity of pro- ceedings connected with the taking of the declaratory oath. And see the pase of Green's Son v. Salas, 1887, 31 Fed., 106. A more recent case has held that a State can not impeach the proceedings. Peterson v. State, 1905, 89 S. W., 81. This view is not in accord with the dicta of some of the earlier cases which are cited below. It appears clearly established that private parties may not impeach the record of naturalization. The leading case on this subject is that of Commonwealth v. Paper, 1868, 1 Brewster, 263, 267, in which certain citizens petitioned that certificates of naturalization which had been granted to persons named should be vacated and set aside. The court said : I shall grant the rule ; but it is done on the condition that the attorney-general shall appear on the record to prosecute the rule. One citizen can not impugn the action of a court in naturalization cases so far as to require the cancellation of naturalization papers. Some public authority must do this; and I under- stood when this petition was handed up that the attorney-general was to be the official party to the proceeding. This case was followed in the later case of In re Shaw, 1893, 2 Penna. Dist. C., 250, 252, in which a marine engineer's association undertook to have set aside Shaw's certificate of naturalization. This association had gone to the pains of investigating Shaw's proceedings and of collecting evidence to show that they were invalid. In the course of his opinion Reed, J., said : The course taken in the present case, though entirely straightforward, is both unauthorized and impertinent, for neither the petitioner, nor the body of which he is a member, has the slightest grievance to complain of. The wrong, if wrong there be, is to the nation and to the State. The Attorney-General of the United States, by himself or his subordinates, the attorney-general of Pennsyl- vania, or the district attorney of this county, is thereof the proper vindicator. (See Com. v. Paper, 1 Brewster, 269, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.) To these officers the petitioner, not as a marine engineer, either by himself or his associates, but as an American citizen, could at any time apply. A hearing to the representative of the person injured by its error will never be denied by any court faithful to its duty, but the attempt to remedy a public wrong, at the instance of a private person, when no reason is shown for the absence of the officers of the law duly authorized in this connection, can only lead to con- fusion, as well-tried experience has shown. CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 133 These cases were expressly followed in In re McOarran, 1894, 8 Misc., 482, approved on appeal in 1897, 16 App. Div., 311. As already suggested, the dicta in these cases would suggest that a State might act, though the recent case of Peterson v. State, supra, is, as stated, directly against such a conclusion. The dicta, of the above cases, to the effect that the Attorney-General of the United States might act, would seem entirely sound. Private parties have attempted to impeach naturalization proceed- ings on a quo warranto against the incumbent of an office, the incum- bent's right to which is being contested. Where the allegation is that the one holding the office is himself an alien and the naturalization proceedings sought to be impeached or passed upon are the proceed- ings upon which he relies for his own citizenship, the courts have refused to permit this question to be raised in a quo warranto action. State v. Brandhorst, 1900, 156 Mo., 457 ; State v. McDonald, 1877, 24 Minn., 48; State v. Penny, 1850, 10 Ark., 621. And so also was the holding where the action, though seemingly not strictly a quo war- ranto, was one brought to try the right to an office. Scott v. Stro- bach, 1873, 49 Ala., 477. Where, however, under such a quo warranto proceeding, the question has been, not as to the alienage of the one holding the contested office, but of some of his electors, the courts have permitted the question to be gone into. People v. Pease, 1860, 30 Barb., 588 (the court saying that this was not a collateral attack on naturalization proceedings. Pratt, J., dissenting) ; Contested Elections of 1868, 1870, 2 Brewster, 130; Beardstown v. Virginia, 1876, 81 111., 541. The proceedings may be in a way impeached by the party himself, it would seem, where he applies that they be amended nunc pro tunc, particularly where, as will usually be the case, this involves the delivering up of the certificate already received and the issuance of a new one. In this connection the following cases are of impor- tance : In matter of Christern, 1878, 11 Jones & Spencer, 523 ; State ■v. McDonald, 1877, 24 Minn., 48 ; In re McCoppin, 1869, 5 Sawy., 630 (where the petition was for renaturalization) ; In matter of Desty, 1880, 8 Abb. New Cas., 250. It has been said, however, that if the record is void on its face it may be attacked at any time and in any proceedings. In re Yamashita, 1902, 30 Wash., 234 (where admission to practice before the Washington bar was denied to a native of Japan who held a certificate of naturalization) . The recent statute, while authorizing proceedings on the part of the United States, both at the time the applicant is admitted to citizenship (sec. 11) and at any time later (sec. 15) for irregulari- ties specified, contains no provision as to whether or not State officials may also act under such conditions. That question still remains open. It is not unlikely, however, that the ruling in Peterson v. State, supra, will be usually followed. B. FOE WHAT IMPEACHED. In a general way, it is true, of course, that the judgment of natural- ization may be impeached for whatever would rencfer any judgment of a court invalid. It is peref ctly clear that it may be impeached for fraud. United States v. Norsch, 1890, 42 Fed., 417, 419. See in mat- ter of McCarran, 1894, 8 Misc., 482. However, this fraud must be 134 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. of a particular kind. It must be positive rather than negative. In United States v. Norsch there was an attempt to set aside natural- ization proceedings on the ground of fraud, because the applicant had presented himself for naturalization, knowing that he was not entitled thereto. In ruling that this was not fraud within the mean- ing of the naturalization statutes the court said : A person does not commit a fraud, in a legal sense, by merely applying to a court of justice for relief or for the grant of some privilege, even though the applicant believes that under the law, rightly administered, he is not entitled to the relief sought or to the privilege claimed. Whatever a person's own opinion may be touching his right to relief in a given case, he is entitled to take the judgment of a court having jurisdiction to hear and determine the cause, and in so doing he commits no fraud. A litigant in such case only crosses the line dividing legal frauds from conduct that is merely reprehensible from a moral standpoint, when he resorts to false testimony or to some trick or artifice with a view of deceiving the court and thereby obtaining a judgment to which he is not entitled. The present bill neither shows that the decree sought to be avoided was procured by false testimony given on behalf of the applicant on the hearing of the application for naturalization, or by means of any other fraudulent device. In United States v, Kornmehl, 1898, 89 Fed., 10, where the fraud consisted in false affidavits, the papers were revoked. It seems logical and in accordance with the cases already considered, in discussing the capacity in which State courts act, that naturalization proceedings may not be attacked for a false oath which is extrajudicial, and the cases have so held. United States v. Grottkau, 1887, 30 Fed., 672; State v. Helle,_ 1834, 2 Hill (S. C), 290. The proceedings may be attacked also" for improper vouching by an alien (Commonwealth v. Paper, 1868, 1 Brewster, 263) ; where the record on its face shows that there are defects (Banks v. Walker, 1848, 3 Barb. Ch., 438; McCarty v. Hodges, 1846, 2 Edm. Sel. Gas., 433), and where the certificate is void on its face (In re Yamashita, 1902, 30 Wash., 234). In Scott v. Strobach, 1873, 49 Ala., 477, the court adjudged that a certificate valid on its face could not be col- laterally attacked on ground of fraud and of untrue recitals. The case In re Langtry, 1887, 31 Fed., 879, should also be noted here as showing that the granting of the first papers may be annulled on the ground that the declaratory oath was taken away from the clerk's" office; but in this connection the case of Andres v. Circuit Judge, 1889, 77 Mich., 85, contra, should be noted; and see the cases cited under section 4 A-b. C. IN WHAT WAY THE PROCEEDINGS MAY BE ATTACKED. Where the purpose for questioning the proceedings has been to annul them the bills framed to accomplish this result are variously stated. There may be bills asking for an order to show cause why naturaliza- tion proceedings should not be vacated (Commonwealth v. Paper, 1868, 1 Brewster, 263) ; or to show cause why naturalization proceed- ings should not be set aside and canceled (United States v. Korn- mehl, 1898, 89 Fed., 10) ; or by a suit to cancel the certificate (United States v. Norsch, 1890, 42 Fed., 417) ; or to annul " a proceeding under the naturalization laws" (Pintsch Compressing Co. v. Bergin, 1896, 84 Fed., 140) ; or to " set aside an order " admitting to citizenship (In matter of McCarran, 1894, 8 Misc., 482— apparentlv sought in aid of CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 135 an ejectment suit) ; or " to set aside a judgment admitting defendant to citizenship " (Peterson v. State, 1905, 89 S. W., 81) ; or on a " rule to vacate and annul decree of naturalization, and rescind certificate issued thereon " (In re Shaw, 1892, 2 Pa. Dist. C, 250) ; or by the court's own motion (In re Langtry, 1887, 31 Fed., 879; and see Green's Son v. Salas, 1887, 31 Fed., 106). Where the question before the court has been merely whether or not a certain individual was a' citizen, the judgment having no reference to the cancellation or annulment of the naturalization proceedings, there has been of course no bill filed, and the question has come up more or less collaterally to the main question of the suit. Moreover, there seems to be no limitation as to the kinds of proceedings in which citizenship may be thus called into question. The following cases will suggest the range : In Spratt v. Spratt, 1830, 4 Peters, 393, the action was a suit in replevin in which the questions at issue were stated by Chief Justice Marshall, as follows : " It appears to the court to depend essentially on two questions: 1. Was James Spratt a citizen of the United States? 2. If he became a citizen, did the prem- ises in the avowry mentioned pass to his alien relations, who are his" next of kin? " The courts have permitted also examination into the citizenship of grand jurors who have found indictments against the accused. In Commonwealth v. Towles, 1835, 5 Leigh, 743, this ques- tion was raised by a plea in abatement. Note: It is settled that the question of citizenship may be properly raised by a plea in abatement, Hollingsworth v. Duane, 1801, Wall C. C, 51; De Wolf v. Ribaud, 1828, 1 Peters, 476 ; Coxe v. Gulick, 1829, 5 Halst. N. J., 328, and it has been suggested by some courts that this is the only way in which it might be raised under the common law forms of pleading. But in Catlett & Keith v. Ins. Co., 1826, 1 Paine, C. C, 594, the court held it might properly be raised under the general issue. In State v. Cole, 1864, 17 Wis., 674, it was raised by exception and demurrer. In Ackerman v. Haenck, 1893, 147 111., 514, the court refused to examine into the citizenship of one of the judges of an election in a contested election case. In Richards v. McDaniel, 1820, 2 Nott & McCord, 351, the question was raised on a motion for a new trial in an action of trespass. In Green's Son v. Salas, 1887, 31 Fed., 106, it was examined on a plea that went to the jurisdiction, and in In re Yamashita, 1902, 30 Wash., 235, an application for admission to the bar afforded opportunity for passing upon the matter of citizen- ship. In Banks v. Walker, 1848, 3 Barb. Ch., 438, the question was raised in a suit to foreclose a mortgage, the claimant alleging natu- ralization. D. WHAT EVIDENCE WILL IMPEACH. While the cases have held that naturalization may not be proved by parol, other cases have held that they may be disproved by parol. To this point McCarty v. Hodges, 1846, 2 Edm. Sel. Cas., 433; Richards v. McDaniels, 1820, 2 Nott & McCord, 351; although the courts have also held that they will not be disproved by a certificate of the clerk of the court to the effect that no record of naturalization exists or appears there. Beardstown v. Virginia, 1876, 81 111., 541. This, however, appears to be purely a matter of evidence. 136 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. E. EFFECT OF LAPSE OF TIME ON INFORMAL PROCEEDINGS. The case of In re McCarran, 1894, 8 Misc., 482, raised a very inter- esting point. It appeared there that the alleged invalid naturali- zation proceedings were had in 1866 and these were permitted to rest until 1894, when proceedings were brought by third parties to have the record declared invalid. The court asserted that such a length of time as this would defeat such an action as was brought, even for fraud. It should be noted in connection with this aspect of the case that not only were the proceedings brought by private parties, and so under the usual rule not maintainable, * but also that they were not within the rule laid down in In re Yamashita, supra, as to proceed- ings void on their face. Section 8. — Effect of naturalization. Naturalization proceedings instantly confer upon the party citizen- ship in the United States (Wood v. Fitzgerald, 1870, 3 Oreg., 568, 583), and from that time a person naturalized ceases to be a foreigner within the view of our laws. Spratt v. Spratt, 1828, 1 Pete rs, 341 . 348. a In pronouncing his opinion in the latter case, Chief- Justice Mar shall indicated the effect of naturalization in a general way with the following language : Qt&m^ U Up {, «, $. 1? I ^0 0?J$ A naturalized person is, indeed, made a citizeii under an _act. of _C°ngress, but the act does not DroceecT to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capadjies. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native Citizen and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of, a native. TLe Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge, or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual. The Constitution then takes him up and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue. He is distin- guishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so jCar_as the Constitution makes the distinction ; the law makes none. The general effect, therefore, of proceedings of naturalization is, as stated by Chief Justice Marshall, to put the naturalized alien in . almost the exact position of a native-born citizen of the United States. Xpt only is the alien himself thus put in a new position, but his act may have an effect on others. As has been already seen, the naturali- zation of the parent may naturalize the child; the naturalization of the husband may naturalize the wife. This latter, however, was not the case until specially provided for by statute, and prior to the stat- ute a number of interesting cases arose with reference to the wife's right of dower in lands acquired by her husband, she being still con- sidered as an alien. One of the earliest cases is Sutliffe v. Forgey, 1823, 1 Cowen, 89, affirmed in 5 Cowen, 715, in which at the time of the marriage both parties were aliens, the land in question being acquired by the hus- band after naturalization. The court stated (and it would seem correctly) that while at common law the wife in such a situation would be an alien and so not endowable, still under the statutes of <* The precise question involved, where this statement was made by Chief Justice Marshall, had to do with the meaning of a Maryland statute, but the principle seems sound aside from this. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATEIATION, ETC. 137 New York as then existing she did take her dower in the land. Under circumstances somewhat different, ten years later, in Mick v. Mick, 1833, 10 Wend., 379, the court denied dower to an alien widow of a natural-born citizen. In Priest v. Cummings, 1837, 16 Wend., 615, the latter case was distinguished from the first, and under the same conditions as in Mick v. Mick the wife was declared dowable; but this case was reversed on appeal, 1838, 20 Wend., 338, where the court also expressed the idea that citizenship was not retrospective. It is unnecessary for the purposes of this report to analyze the cases on dower. The question raised by the last case, however, is of considerable importance. It would appear, as there indicated, that at common law the naturalization of a female alien acted retrospectively tritb. reference to her dower rights, but this conclusion was denied in the case in question, under the authority of the New York statutes. As to whether or not naturalization has this effect has more frequently arisen, however, in connection with cases involving the descent of land and the holding of land by an alien purchaser after naturaliza- tion. One of the earlier cases in which the first question was dis- cussed was that of People v. Conklin, 1841, 2 Hill (N. Y), 67. It appeared there that lands were devised in 1779, subject to a life estate, which actually continued until 1832. The demandant was naturalized in 1828. The court held that under the circumstances here, entirely aside from the question of citizenship, the demandant could not, under the canons of descent, successfully defend his suit against the plaintiffs. However, the judge went further and dis- cussed the matter as to whether or not his naturalization could be retrospective, and laid down, in a dictum, what seems to be the law on this subject: In answer to this objection we were referred to cases where it has been held that naturalization sometimes has a retroactive effect, and confirms a defective title previously vested in the alien. Those are cases where the alien had acquired lands by purchase, in which mode he may take, and was then natur- alized before office found. But in this case the alien must claim by descent. and. as he could not take lands in that way he ha,d no estate or title to be con- firmed by the naturalization. He took nothing on the death of his father ; and naturalization, though it may confirm a defective title, will not confer an estate. This language was subsequently quoted and relied upon in Heeney v. Trustees, etc., 1861, 33 Barb., 360, affirmed in 39 N. Y, 333, where at the time of the descent cast the party was an alien, though he was subsequently naturalized. The second point has been raised and has also received consider- ation by the courts. In Jackson v. Beach, 1800, 1 Johns. Cases, 399, it appeared that an alien was the cestui in relation to certain lands which had been purchased and settled upon a trustee in his favor. Later he became naturalized, and the trustee then transferred the legal estate to him. It was insisted that this could not be done, but the court held that inasmuch as the alien could hold until office found, such naturalization confirmed the title which he had pre- viously acquired. And this line of reasoning was followed in the case of Jackson v. Green, 1831, 7 Wend., 3'33. The rights and duties which citizenship confers are not, as already suggested', within the purview of this report, and will not be further considered. 138 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. Chapter II. — Naturalization by naturalization of parent. By the act of 1790 it was provided that " the children of such per- sons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States." The act of 1795 reenacted this clause. The statute of 1802 provided " that the chil- dren of persons duly 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 21 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." This statute was in force down to 1878, and at that time was substantially incor- porated into the Revised Statutes as section 2172. A statute in 1804 made a further provision for minor children to this effect: That when any alien who shall have complied with the first condition speci- fied in the first section of the said original act, and who shall have pursued the directions prescribed in the second section of the said act [the sections relating to taking the declaratory oath], 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 privileges as such upon taking the oaths prescribed by law. The cases arising under these statutes may be classified in the fol- lowing manner : Section 1. — Naturalization by naturalization of the father. A. WHERE NO DOCBT EXISTS AS TO THE FATHER'S NATURALIZATION. It has been from the first clear, under these statutes, that a minor child was naturalized by the naturalization of the father. In the matter of Morrison, 1861, 22 How. Pr., 99 ; People v. McNally, 1880, 59 How. Pr., 500; State v. Mims, 1879, 26 Minn., 183; Prentice v. Miller, 1890, 82 Cal., 570; Dorsey v. Brigham, 1898, 177 111., 250; and see Haynes v. Bay, 1880, 54 Iowa, 109. It has also been decided that in order for the statute to operate in favor of the minor child the father must .have taken out his final papers before the child became of age, Berry v. Hull, 1892, 6 N. Mex., 643, 660; or, which amounts to the same thing, that the mere fact that the father has made the declaratory oath (taken out his first papers) will be of no force or efficacy in naturalizing the minor child; In re Conway, 1863, 17 Wis., 526 ; In re Moses, 1897, 83 Fed., 995 ; and see Ex parte Overington, 1812, 6 Binn, 371; unless indeed the father dies after the taking of such oath and before final naturalization, in which case the children are by the terms of the statute made citizens bv virtue of the father's act. Schrimpf v. Settegast, 1873, 38 Tex., 96." However, while the decisions thus far stated are merely declaratory of the wording of the statute, a number of interesting questions have arisen for adjudication in the courts upon points not so well covered by the statute. One of the earliest cases is Campbell v. Gordon, 1809, 6 Cranch, 176, 183, in which it appeared that one "William Currie, a British subject, emigrated to the United States, taking out his natu- ralization papers in 1795". At this time Currie had one daughter, CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 139 who was born in Scotland, and who at the time of her father's natu- ralization was a resident there, she not coming to the United States until 1797. In passing upon the question of her citizenship, Wash- ington, J., said : The next question to be decided is whether the naturalization of William Currie conferred upon his daughter the rights of a citizen, after her coming to and residing within the United States, she having been a resident in a foreign country at the time when her father was naturalized? Whatever difficulty might exist as to the construction of the third section of the act of the 29th of January, 1795, in relation to this point, it is conceived that the rights of citizenship were clearly conferred upon the female appellee by the fourth section of the act of the 14th of April, 1802. This act declares that the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, being under the age of 21 years at the time of their parents being so naturalized, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States. This is precisely the case of Mrs. Gordon. Her father was duly naturalized, at which time she was an infant; but she came to the United States before the year 3802, and was at the time when this law passed dwelling within the United States. It is therefore the unanimous opinion of the court that at the time of the death of James Currie Mrs. Gordon was entitled to all the right and privi- lege of a citizen ; and, therefore, that there is no error in the decree of the circuit court for the district of Virginia, which is to be affirmed with costs. The effect of this decision is, of course, to hold that it is immaterial that the child be a resident of the United States at the time of naturalization, it being sufficient that the child become a resident during minority. But no other case has gone the lengths on this point that were reached in Young v. Peck, 1839, 21 Wend., 389, affirmed on appeal, 1841, 26 Wend., 613. Here a father emigrated to America before the Revolutionary war, becoming at its close a citizen by virtue of the new allegiances created at that time. He left in Scotland, on emigra- tion to this country a daughter who grew up, married, and remained in Scotland until after her husband died. She was born about 1770 and did not come to America until 1830. The court held that she was a citizen. The case is somewhat difficult to understand. On its appeal Chancellor Walworth stated the proposition of the case thus: The question then arises whether his infant daughter, who had been left by him in Scotland in 1774, and who was still an infant, not only at the time he became a citizen of this State, but also at the time of the treaty of peace in 1783, is entitled to the rights of citizenship here, either by this transfer of the allegiance of her father or by virtue of the fourth section of the naturalization act of April, 1S02. The learned chief justice who delivered the opinion of the supreme court has put his decision in her favor upon the latter ground. A reference to the statute given, supra, will show that on this point it is ambiguous. It provides that children shall be citizens upon the naturalization of their parents where they are " under the age of twenty-one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship, if dwelling in the United States." Obviously, the question is left open whether this means whenever they are dwelling in the United States they shall be con- sidered citizens, or they shall be considered citizens if dwelling in the United -States at the time of naturalization. As understood b\ the chancellor, Nelson, C. J., had placed his decision in the lower court upon the ground that the statute meant that whenever the child came within the United States it should be considered a citizen. But in his own opinion, the chancellor abandoned this position, and, while 140 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. affirming the holding of the court below, placed it rather upon the ground that the father became a citizen under the readjustment of allegiances at the end of the war and stood in a somewhat different position with reference to himself and his family from that in which naturalized citizens were placed. The courts since then have not been entirely clear as to just which ground the case was decided upon in the upper court. Emott, J., in Ludlam v. Ludlam, 1860, 31 Barb., 486 at 491, s. c. affirmed on appeal 26 N. Y., 356, said : The case of Young v. Peck (21 Wend., 389; s. c, 26 id., 613) was decided in the supreme court upon the statute of 1802, and in the court of errors, either upon the same ground or upon the effect of the Declaration of Independence and the treaty of peace ; upon persons domiciled and remaining here after the Revolutionary war. The case was taken on a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States, where the appeal was dismissed without an opinion, owing to the parties reaching a compromise. See Peck v. Young, 1843, 1 How., 250. One year before the chancellor was called upon to give his opinion in Young v. Peck a similar question had come before him in the case of West v. West, 1840, 8 Paige, ch., 433, in which it appeared that one West, a native Englishman, married a native subject of the same country, by whom he had three children, all born in England. By a second marriage, also to an English woman, he had four children, two of whom were born in England, and the other two in ximerica after his emigration to this country in 1823. He was naturalized in 1830, at which time all his children were under 21 and were residing with him in New York. After his death the two American-born children appeared by their guardian and claimed the entire estate, on the ground that their brothers and sisters who were born in Eng- land were aliens and could not inherit from their father. The court decided that the act of 1802 " was intended to embrace the children of those who shall thereafter be, as well as those who had already been, duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States. All the children of Thomas West, then, were citizens of the United States at the time of his death, and his real estate descended to them in equal proportion as tenants in common." The distinction between this case and the previous one is apparent, since in the latter the children were domiciled in America at the time of the father's naturalization. In 1850 the question came before the supreme court of Arkansas in State v. Penny, 1850, 10 Ark., 621, where on a writ of quo war- ranto against the defendant as to why he held the office of sheriff, it was averred that " he was an alien and not a citizen of the United States at the time of his election to that office." It appeared that his father had emigrated to the United States in 1824 when the child was 11 years old ; that his father had been duly naturalized and ad- mitted to citizenship, at which time the defendant was under the age of 21 years and dwelling in the United States. The defendant relied on the naturalization of his father to prove his own citizenship. In sustaining this contention the court declared that the case of West v. West came fully up to the present case and sustained 1 his judgment, that case " being an express adjudication of the chancel- lor of the State of New York, that, under the naturalization act of CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 141 Congress of 1802, the infant children of aliens, though born out of the United States, if dwelling within the United States at the time of the naturalization of their parents, became such citizens by such naturalization." A Florida court in O'Connor v. State, 1860, 9 Fla., 215, in passing upon the qualifications of a juror, who, it appeared, was born in Ba- varia and had come to this country while an infant with his father, but who had never taken out naturalization papers himself, though his father had while he was still an infant, the court adopted the language of West v. West quoted above. In the North Noonday Mining Co. v. Orient Mining Co., 1880, 6 Sawy., 299, Sawyer, circuit judge in charging the jury, used the fol- lowing language in denning the rule of citizenship according to which the jury should determine whether or not a locator of a mining claim was a citizen : A person born in a foreign country, out of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose father is not a citizen of the United States, can only become a citizen by naturalization. The foreign-born son becomes a citizen by being himself naturalized, or by the naturalization of his father during the minority of the son. In State v. Andriano, 1887, 92 Mo., 70, 76, the court decided that— The infant children of aliens, though born out of the United States, if dwelling within the United States at the time of the naturalization of their parents, became citizens by such naturalization, and that the provisions of that act on this subject are prospective, and intended to embrace the children of those who should thereafter be, as well as those who had already been, duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States. For this proposition the court cited State v. Penny, supra ; O'Con- nor v. State, supra; West v. West, supra, and United States v. Kellar, infra. The court then considered Campbell v. Gordon, supra, but in connection rather with the question of the prospective effect of the statute of 1802 than as to the question of the residence of the child in the United States at the time of the naturalization of the parent. It will thus be seen that there are two cases, Campbell v. Gordon, and Young v. Peck, in which the question arose as to whether or not children born abroad and resident there at the time of the naturaliza- tion of their parents in" America became by that act citizens of the United States. Both cases are peculiar on their facts. In Campbell v. Gordon the daughter came to America while she was yet a minor and before the passage of the act by virtue of which she was after- wards declared a citizen. The effect of the judgment was that the statute applied retrospectively. It must be said, however, either that the court considered that the act was intended to cover all aliens whose parents had been naturalized or who had come to America up the date of the passage of the act or that residence in America, at the time of the parent's naturalization is not necessary. In Young v. Peck, as already indicated, the ground of the decision is not clear. Following the argument of the chancellor, it is to be rested upon the fact that the father's citizenship was due to the readjustment of allegiances at the end of the war, and that a citizenship so gained is sui generis. This conclusion, however, that ther*can be any differ- ent kinds of citizenship is not in accord with the determinations made in other cases, for in Crane v. Eeeder, 1872, 25 Mich., 303, that precise question was up before the court. It appeared there that the 142 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. citizenship of the parent of the person in question was acquired by his continued residence in the United States after the treaty of 1797, in which it was provided, as is usual in such treaties, that all British subjects remaining within the United States beyond a certain time should be deemed to have elected to become American citizens. The court held that citizenship acquired in this manner was in no way different from that acquired in any other way. That citizen- ship was citizenship however obtained. With that point out of the case of Young v. Peck we are forced to the position that residence in the United States at the time of the naturalization of the parent, or, indeed, during minority, is unnecessary, and that whenever the child comes into this country he is to be treated as a citizen. In all the cases (cited above) subsequent to Young v. Peck, in which the courts used language to the effects that the. minor children must be resident here at the time of the naturalization of the father, the fact was that the children had been so resident, and the statement of the court to that effect, therefore, was immaterial, a mere dictum. This leaves us, therefore, with the following questions open for determination : First, must the child reside in America at the time of the father's naturalization, or is it sufficient that he come to America at any time before he reaches majority? and, secondly, is he to be considered a citizen before he acquires a residence in the United States, that is^, does he become, as does the wife of one naturalizing himself in America, a citizen by virtue of such naturalization, irre- spective of the place in which he lives ? Our courts have held, in accordance with the principle of our own statute, that where a native American citizen moved into British territory and there took the oath of allegiance to the sovereign of Great Britain, his son born after such oath was not a citizen of this country. Brown v. Dexter, 1884, 66 Cal., 39. ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN. Two interesting cases have arisen in connection with the status of illegitimate children. In one case, Dale v. Irwin, 1875, 78 111., 170, the reputed father of the illegitimate child married the mother of the child, both parties being aliens, the husband (the reputed father) becoming afterwards naturalized. The court held that by virtue of the naturalization of his reputed father the illegitimate son became a citizen. (But see the discussion of this case under subdivision C infra.) The second case is Ghryer v. Smith, 1864, 22 Md., 239, in which the father of illegitimate children by an alien mother was an American citizen, the children being born abroad. The court declared such children were not citizens of the United States. For an interesting general discussion of the effect of adoption under such conditions, see Blythe v. Ayres, 1892, 96 Cal., 532. A few cases have come before the courts in which it was impossible for the child to prove by the production of the record the naturaliza- tion of his father. In such cases, however, the court, considering that the naturalizing proceedings result in a judgment that the party be a citizen of the United States, have permitted that judgment to be proved as are the ordinary judgments of a court; and therefore, where the record of the judgment is not forthcoming, they allow it to be CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 143 established in other ways Accordingly, in Sasportas u. De La Motta, 1858, 10 Rich. Eq., 38, a son was permitted to establish the citizenship of his father by showing that the father had exercised the privileges and had been generally reputed to be a citizen. The case of Boyd v. Nebraska, 1891, 143 U. S., 135, goes to the same point. And see Bex- roth v. Schein, 1903, 206 111., 80, 83. In Trabing v. United States, 1897, 32 Court of Claims, 440, the court refused to consider a son a citizen on his showing certain facts tending in that direction, since it did not from his statement " appear that the father ever declared his intention to become a citizen; and it does not appear that he was naturalized; and it does not appear to the satisfaction of the court that he exercised the right of the franchise, for the statement of the claimant that he voted is manifestly hearsay. * * * It does not appear, as in Boyd's case, that the father had become a citizen aild that the son also exercised of [sic] a citizen by voting." The courts have applied the general principle that the naturalizing of the father naturalizes children to cases of expatriation from the United States. This is shown by the case of Brown v. Dexter, 1884, 66 Cal., 39, already referred to, in which a native American citizen took the oath of allegiance to Great Britain, after which he had a son born in his adopted country. The court held that such son was not a citizen of the United States. At least one case has arisen under that part of the statute of 1802 which provided for the naturalizing of children born of those who, previous to the passing of any laws on the subject of naturalization by the Government of the United States, had become citizens of some of the States. In Vint v. Heirs of King, 1853, 2 Am. Law Eeg. O. S., 712, it appeared that the father of the child in question had been naturalized according to the laws of Virginia in 1787. At that time he had two children then minors living in Ireland, who came to Vir- ginia in 1792, residing there until after 1802. The court held such children citizens by virtue of the provisions already referred to. The court based the result on Campbell v. Gordon, supra. It does not appear whether or not at the time the act was passed the children were still minors. Section 2. — Naturalisation by naturalization of the mother. As will be noted, the statutes refer always to parents without specifying either father or mother. Consequently, either is equally within the wording of the statute. The question as to whether or not the naturalizing of the mother naturalized the children arose as early as 1856 in Brown v. Shilling, 1856, 9 Md., 74, where the mother, a widow, was naturalized according to the general laws of natural- ization. The court declared that such naturalizing conferred citizen- ship on her children. On the soundness of this decision there could seem to be no question. The point has, in several cases, arisen, however, in another form, the question being whether or not the son of an alien woman by a former alien husband becomes an American citizen on the mariage of the mother to an American citizen, or to an alien who later becomes an American citizen. While it is not clear that in any of the cases cited the question was presented as to the effect of an alien woman marrying a native American citizen, the effect upon the citizenship 144 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. of the son of the marriage of the mother to a naturalized citizen was passed upon in United States v. Kellar, 1882, 13 Fed., 82. The court in its opinion, said: The mother of the defendant having thus become a citizen by force alone of her marriage' with a naturalized citizen in the year 1S68, did not the defendant, being then a minor and dwelling in the United States, himself also become, ipso facto, a citizen? It seems to the court that this question must be answered in the affirmative. In Gumm v. Hubbard, 1888, 97 Mo., 311, it appeared only that the stepfather of the child was a citizen, whether naturalized or native is not stated. See also in Kreitz v. Behrensmeyer, 1888, 125 111., 141, 197, 198. In People v. Newell, 1885, 38 Hun., 78, the same result was reached, although in that case the alien mother married an alien who later became naturalized. Some question, it would seem, might be raised as to whether or not the child becomes a citizen by virtue of the naturalization of his mother, or because of the naturalization of his stepfather. In Dale v. Irwin, 78 111., 170, 185 (in which case as indicated above, the question was as to the naturalization of the illegitimate child by the marriage of his reputed father with his mother and the later naturalization of the reputed father) , the court commented upon the facts as follows: His case (the son's) is a peculiar one, and though he may be illegitimate, he came to this country as n member of John Ruckle's family, whose wife was his mother and who was naturalized whilst Henry was an infant. John Ruckle is his reputed father, and the husband of his mother. We are inclined to hold, as he was a member of his reputed father's family when his father was natural- ized, and he an infant, that, by virtue of the act of Congress, he became naturalized. In Kreitz v. Behrensmeyer, supra, the same court used the follow- ing language: "And the children of such a woman (when natural- ized by marrying a citizen) , under the age of twenty-one years, be- come citizens, by virtue of her citizenship." The doubt has been resolved in accordance with United States v. Kellar, supra, and the occasional dicta by United States v. Rodgers, 1906, 144 Fed. Rep., 711, in which the court held squarely that a minor residing in this country with his mother and stepfather when the latter was naturalized like- wise became a citizen. The question is, perhaps, of little practical importance. Chapter III. — Naturalization by virtue of the marriage rela- tionship. This question came before Congress as early as 1804, with the result that that body passed an act providing " 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 pursued the directions prescribed in the second section of the said act, may die before he is actually naturalized, the widow and children of such alien shall be considered as citizens of the United States, and shall be entitled to all rights and privileges as such upon taking the oaths prescribed by law." This, of course, did not confer citizenship on an alien woman who married an American citizen, naturalized or native, and a number of cases having arisen involving this point, .as will be seen from those cited below, Congress in 1855 made fur- CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 145 ther provisions as follows : " That any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or who shall be married to a citien of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen." This statute remains practically unchanged at the present time. The cases under these statutes may be classified in accordance with the following arrangement: Section 1. — Naturalization by naturalization of the husband. A. WHERE THE WIFE IS A RESIDENT. A number of cases arose under the acts of 1802 and 1804, usually in connection with the right of the wife to take dower. The gen- eral effect of these acts was well expressed by Chief Justice Simpson in White v. White, 1859, 2 Met. (Ky.) , 185, 191, when he said : Naturalization is a personal privilege, and the alien wife does not become a naturalized citizen by the naturalization of the husband. The acts of Con- gress do not impart to it that effect, nor are we apprised of any law which, at the time of the decedent's death, conferred upon his wife the right to take real estate by descent, in consequence of his naturalization, although such a right has been since conferred upon an alien wife whose husband is a citizen of the United States by the Revised Statutes. One of the earliest cases on the subject is that of Sutliff c. Forgey, 1823, 1 Cowen, 89, affirmed in 5 Cowen, 713, in which it appeared that the husband and wife, alien born, came to America in 1786 with intent to become citizens, and resided here until his death, in 1820. The husband was naturalized in 1803. The widow was never natu- ralized. The court held that she was not entitled to dower, which seems to require the conclusion that she was not a citizen. The New York court again had occasion to pass upon a similar question in Connolly v. Smith, 1839, 21 Wend., 59, the question again being as to the right of " an alien widow of a citizen to her dower." In the course of its opinion the court, by Cowen, J., said: We do not deny her right because her husband was incapable of taking; but the wife must acquire a capacity of her own. It never has been supposed since Sutliff v. Forgey that her capacity followed that of her husband. Two interesting cases, however, have arisen in Kentucky. In the earlier, Alsberry v. Hawkins, 1830, 9 Dana, 177, in which the husband, once a citizen of Kentucky, emigrated in 1824 to the " Province of Texas," where he died in 1826, the wife continuing to reside there until the summer of 1836, when she returned to Kentucky on a visit to her daughter, but with the intent to go back to Texas as her home. She sought to recover dower interest in land sold by her husband to the defendant before they left Kentucky for Texas.' In declaring that the wife was hot entitled to dower the court used the following language : According to the principle recognized in the case of Shanks et al. v. Dupont et ai., 3 Peters, 248, if her husband had become an alien before his death she «This statute seems based directly on the English statute, seventh and eighth Vict., chap. 66, sec. 16, which provided : "And be it enacted, That any woman married, or who shall be married to a natural-born subject or person naturalized, shall be deemed and taken to be herself naturalized, and have all the rights and privileges of a natural-born subject." H. Doc. 326, 59-2 10 146 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATBIATION, ETC. was then an alien also in a political point of view, and though, being sub pro- testati viri, her removal with her husband, and his expatriation, might not necessarily conclude her as to her civil rights, yet these facts should, in our opinion, be so far prima facie evidence against her, as to her own alienage, as to impose on her the burden of repellant proof, which she has not attempted to make in this case. The court then discussed the general proposition of the right and effect of expatriation, and it is not improbable that the determining fact in the mind of the judge was rather the act of expatriation by the wife herself than of the effect of the naturalization of her hus- band in Texas. The question was up before the same court in Moore v. Tisdale, 1845, 5 B. Mon., 352, where facts substantially those of Alsberry v. Hawkins were before the court, save that the wife upon the death of her husband returned to Kentucky. The court had before it the case of Alsberry v. Hawkins, and seemed to regard that case as being placed upon the ground of the expatriation of the wife herself, for in this case the court declared that inasmuch as the wife had returned to the United States soon after the death of her husband " it should be deemed that she had merely submitted herself temporarily, and as a wife, to the dominion of Texas, without having renounced her native allegiance; that she. therefore, never has been an alien, and that her rights of property remain as if instead of having been a temporary resident of Texas she had during her absence from Ken- tucky been a resident of one of the other States of the Union. She can not, therefore, be debarred of her dower on the ground of having been an alien at the death of her husband." This case is in line with the New York cases. Courts since the act of 1855 have, of course, reached directly the opposite result. One of the first cases that arose under the new statute was Kelly v. Owen, 1868, 7 Wall., 496, in which, commenting upon the provisions of the act, the court said : $•£ -confers the privileges of citizenship upon women married to citizens of the' United States, if they are of the class of persons for whose naturalization the previous acts of Congress provide. And the cases have uniformly taken this position. Kane v. Mc- Carthy, 1869, 63 N. O, 299 ; Eenner v. Muller, 1879, 57 How.Pr., 229; People v. Newell, 1885, 38 Hun, 78; Kreitz v. Behrensmeyer, 1888, 126 111., 141. In Dorsey v. Brigham, 1898, 177 111., 350, it was sought to be established that the mere taking of the declaratory oath on the part of the husband would confer citizenship on the wife, the husband being still alive, but the court held that such was not the law. As was indicated by the comment in Kelly v. Owen, supra, and as expressly provided in the statute itself, in order that the wife may be naturalized by "the naturalization of her husband, it is necessary that she be one of those classes of persons who might herself be natural- ized under the provisions of Congress. In Leonard v. Grant, 1880, 5 Fed., 11, 17, s. c. Sawy., 603, the court, in declaring that an alien woman, a native and citizen of Switzerland, had become an American citizen by virtue of her marriage to a citizen, said : To entitle the plaintiff to become naturalized at the time she was married to Leonard, on June 10, 1875, she should have been, first, a free white person or a. person of African descent or nativity; second, she must have resided within the United States five years; third, she must have been of good moral CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 147 character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same ; and, fourth, she must have renounced all titles or orders of nobility, if any she had." In Leonard v. Grant the question which was argued by counsel for the plaintiff was that it was " not to be presumed that Congress would naturalize an alien woman absolutely without her consent, and there- fore the act should be construed as only intended, as a matter of con- venience, to give her the status of a citizen during her marriage to a citizen. But," says the court, " the answer to this argument is found in the fact that an alien woman who marries a citizen of the United States must be presumed to assent to the obligations, duties, and status which the law provides shall be consequent upon the act of entering into such relation. " No law expressly providing for a temporary or contingent citizen- ship is known to the legislation of the United States, and so unusual and singular a purpose ought not to be attributed to Congress with- out an explicit provision to that effect. The language of the statute in question, taken in its most natural and apparent sense, conferred citi- zenship upon the plaintiff on her marriage with Leonard, and there is nothing in it, or the nature or circumstances of the case to warrant the conclusion that Congress thereby only intended to confer upon her a qualified citizenship — a citizenship during marriage. " The phrase, ' shall be deemed a citizen,' in section 1994, Rev. Stat., or as it was in the act of 1855, supra, ' shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen,' while it may imply that the person to whom it relates has not actually become a citizen by the ordinary means or in the usual way, as by the judgment of a competent court, upon a proper applica- tion and proof, yet it does not follow that such person is on that account practically any the less a citizen. The word ' deemed ' is the equivalent of 'considered' or 'adjudged;' and, therefore, whatever an act of Congress requires to be ' deemed ' or ' taken ' as true of any person or thing, must, in law, be considered as having been duly adjudged or established concerning such person or thing, and have force and effect accordingly. When, therefore, Congress declares that an alien woman shall, under certain circumstances, be ' deemed ' an American citizen, the effect, when the contingency occurs, is equivalent to her being naturalized directly by an act of Congress, or in the usual mode thereby prescribed." B. WHEN WIFE A NONRESIDENT. As early as 1800 the point was presented for adjudication in a New York court as to the status of the wife of a British subject, the husband having come to New York before the Revolutionary war. where he lived until he died in 1798, his wife, whom he married before he came to America, having always remained a resident of Great Britain. The court held that such wife was dowable only in such lands as her husband owned before the outbreak of the Revolution. » In this connection, it is of interest to note Hatch v. Ferguson, 1893, 57 Fed., 05!), in which case the husband had married an Indian woman. The Indian wife was declared to be a citizen, though, as already pointed out, this conclu- sion might have been reached, aside from the question of her marriage to an American citizen under the Dawes Act of 1888, which provided that Indians forsaking their tribal relationship should become citizens. And sue Kenner v. JIuller, supra. 148 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. (Kelly v. Harrison, 1800, 2 Johns, case 29.) The same court had a similar question before it in 1858 in Greer v. Sankston, 1858, 26 How. Pr., 473. One Sankston, an alien who, in 1829, had married an Irish w.oman, both being citizens of Ireland ? came to this country in 1831, where he resided until his death in 1854. He was naturalized in 1836 and purchased property in 1843, in which it was now sought to establish the widow's right of dower. While an interpretation of some local statutes was involved the case went to the JDoint that _ the widow had no right of dower, being an alien. Subsequently, in 1864, the same court Was again called upon to pass upon the right of the wife of an alien, the marriage having been in a foreign country before the husband came to America, where he was duly naturalized. In this case the widow, after the death of her husband, came to the United States, but in all other points the case seems identical with the two cases above. The court collected and reviewed the earlier cases, and also the local and national legislation on the question. In commenting upon the act of 1855 the court said : The act of 1855, therefore, as we glean from this previous legislation, though unfinished, the history of the legislative object to be attained by it, and as well the general considerations which influence nations in framing naturalization laws, was designed, certainly, for the benefit of an alien white woman, whether resident or not, married to a person who was at the time of the marriage a citi- zen of the United States, thus securing, by the same law. the rights of citizenship to the children of American citizens born abroad, and to such alien wife all legal rights of citizenship, which otherwise, and by reason of her alienism, she might not possess. * * * Construed with liberality, however, it might be held also to extend to an alien woman resident in this country, though married abroad to an alien, and who came to this country with him or followed him here, and in that way, or in one of these ways, identified herself with the country of his adoption. * * * In this case the plaintiff has neither sought to derive the benefit of her husband's naturalization by coming with or fol- lowing him here nor entitled herself to the benefit of a liberal construction in her favor of the act, as suggested by a residence in this country of any duration prior to her husband's death. Her rights, therefore, as a citizen depend entirely upon the construction of the section of the statute under con- sideration, and I am of the opinion that she has no claim upon her husband's estate thereunder. He was not. when he married her. a citizen of the United States, and she was never a resident thereof during his life. On the contrary, she was, and continued to be, both alien and stranger. The plaintiff being an alien, and having married an alien, and not having resided in this country prior to her husband's death, has no dower right in the lands of which her husband died seized under the provisions of the act of the legislature passed in 1845. Burton i. Burton, 18G4, 26 How. Pr., 474, 478. An interesting state of facts was presented in the case of Kircher v. Murray, 1893, 54 Fed., 617, where it appeared that the husband, a citizen of the United States, emigrated to Texas during its revolu- tion and became a citizen of the State of Texas bv reason of a statute with the terms of which he complied. The court held that his wife became a citizen of Texas, although she remained during the entire time in Illinois. Section 2. — Naturalization by marriage to a citizen. A. AN ALIEN WOMAN MARRIES AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. The general scope of the act of 1855 is well set forth in the case of Kelly v. Owen, 1868, 7 Wall., 496, 498, where it was to be decided whether or not women who marry aliens who become American citi- CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 1,49 zens by naturalization after the marriage are thereby themselves made citizens. In declaring that they were, the court said : As we construe this act, it confers the privileges of citizenship upon women married to citizens of the United States, if they are of the class of persons for whose naturalization the previous acts of Congress provide. The terms " mar- ried " or " who shall be married " do not refer, in our judgment, to the time when the ceremony of marriage is celebrated, but to a state of marriage. They mean that, whenever a woman, who under previous acts might be natu- ralized, is in a state of marriage to a citizen, whether his citizenship existed at the passage of the act or subsequently, or before or after the marriage, she becomes by that fact a citizen also. His citizenship, whenever it exists, con- fers, under the act, citizenship upon her. The construction which would restrict the act to women whose husbands at the time of marriage are citi- zens would exclude far the greater number for whose benefit, as we think, the act was intended. Its object, in our opinion, was to allow her citizenship to follow that of her husband without the necessity of any application for natu- ralization on her part ; and, if this was the object, there is no reason for the restriction suggested. And see, in accord, Luhrs v. Eimer, 1880, 80 N. Y., 171. In the later case of Kane v. McCarthy, 1869, 63 N. C, 299, 304, the same result was reached, where the court said : It is not the ceremony of marriage, or its time or place, but it is the fact of being " married to " — that is, being the wife of — a citizen that makes the wife a citizen — that makes the woman a citizen. The circumstance that her husband was not a citizen at the time of marriage is wholly immaterial, for he became a citizen afterwards ipso facto. So she, being a free white woman married to a citizen, comes within the description and the very words of the act of Congress, " and is deemed and taken to be a citizen ;" for it is the status of being married to — being the wife of a citizen — that makes her one. It can in no possible view make any difference whether the marriage ceremony is performed first, and then the husband becomes a citizen, or whether he becomes a citizen first, and the marriage afterwards takes place. Whenever the two events concur and come together, " she is a woman married to a citi- zen." The thing seems to us too plain to admit of discussion; it is like trying to prove that two added to two makes four. In Mick v. Mick, 1833, 10 Wend., 379, and Priest v. Cummings, 1837, 16 Wend., 617, the widow of a native-born citizen, she herself having been born an alien and never having been naturalized according to the general laws, applied for dower in the estate of her deceased husband. In refusing the right of dower the court characterized the wife as an " alien widow of a natural ~bom citizen? -1 In Currin v. Finn, 184G, 3 Denio, 229, the question of the right of such wife to dower interest in her husband's estate was again presented, and while it does not appear whether or not the husband was a native-born or naturalized citizen, the court, following the earlier cases of Sutliff v. Forgey, supra; Mick v. Mick, supra; Connolly v. Smith, supra; Priest 71. Cummings, supra ; Kelly v. Harrison, supra ; and Davis v. Darrow, 1834, 12 Wend., 65, reached the same result. The cases collected below have all arisen under the statute of 1855, which have uniformly recognized the principle that an alien woman by marrying an American citizen becomes thereby herself a citizen. See Knickerbocker Life Insurance Co. v. Gorbach, 1871, 70 Pa. St., 150; United States v. Kellar, 1882, 13 Fed., 82; s. c. 6 Sawy., 603: Kane v. McCarthy, 1869, 63 N. C, 299; Kreitz v. Behrensmeyer, 1888, 125 111., 141; People v. Newell, 1885, 38 Hun, 78; Gumm v. Hubbard, 1888, 97 Mo., 341. The act has. been held to apply to negroes since the fourteenth amendment; Broadis v. Broadis, 1898, 86 Fed., 951, in which the wife had been, before marriage, a British 150 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. subject. It has also been applied to an interesting state of facts in the case of Ware v. Wisner, 1883, 50 Fed., 310, in which the citizen husband was a citizen by virtue of his having been born of American parents abroad. The court declared that the alien-born wives of such foreign-born American citizens were citizens. It is immaterial, it would seem from this case, that the parties at the time of the mar- riage are not residing within the jurisdiction of the United States; and this is further borne out by the case of Halsey v. Beer, 1889, 52 Hun, 366, in which a naturalized American returned to England, the home of his nativity, and there married an English subject, the two remaining in that country. The court held that by the marriage the wife became a citizen." B. A NATIVE CITIZEN ( WOMAN ) MARRIES A FOREIGN CITIZEN. (a) A NONRESIDENT FOREIGNER. But one case has been found in which the citizenship of a native American citizen (woman) who has married a resident alien has been called in question, and that is the case of Comitis v. Parkerson, -1893, 56 Fed., 556. In this case it appears that the plaintiff had intermar- ried with one Loretto Comitis, a native-born subject of the King of Italy, who resided in New Orleans, where he established a business, intending to make America his permanent home. After his death his wife continued to reside in Louisiana with at no time the purpose of removing to Italy. The court said : The question may be generalized thus : Does a woman who was a citizen of the United States, who never intended to leave it, and never did leave it, become expatriated and become an alien by marriage with a man who had been a sub- ject of Italy, but who, previous to his marriage, had settled in Louisiana, and had forever severed himself from Italy? The court, disapproving the earlier case of Pequignot v. Detroit, infra (though calling attention to certain distinguishing facts of that case), held that the plaintiff in this case did not lose her citizenship by reason of marriage to an alien resident. (b) A NONRESIDENT FOREIGNER. In Shanks v. Dupont, 1830, 3 Peters, 242, the facts were that a woman born in South Carolina before the Revolution lived there until after she became of age and later married a British officer during the British occupation of Charleston ; on the evacuation of Charleston by the British, she returned with the officer to England and lived in England until her death. The court held that her marriage had no effect upon her allegiance, " because marriage with an alien, whether a friend or an enemy, produces no dissolution of the native alle- giance of the wife. It may change her civil rights, but it does not affect her political rights or privileges. The general doctrine is that no person can, by any act of their own, without the consent of the Government, put off their allegiance and become aliens. If it "For the effect of the marriage of an American citizen to Indians, consult the section on Indians, Part I, chap. ] ; and the following cases may be par- ticularly mentioned: Davis v. Hall, 1818, 1 Nott & McCord, 292; Pennock v. Commissioners, 1880, 103 U, S., 44 ; Hatch v. Ferguson, 1893, 57 Fed., 959. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 151 were otherwise, then a feme alien would, by her marriage, become ipso facto a citizen, and would be dowable of the estate of her hus- band, which is clearly contrary to law. (See Kelley n. Harrison, 2 Johns. Cas., 29; Co. Litt., 31 b; Com. Dig. Alien, C, 1; Dower, A, 2; Bac. Abr. Alien, Dower, A.) Our conclusion therefore is that neither of these acts warrant the court in saying that Ann Shanks had ceased to be a citizen of South Carolina at the death of her father." The court further held that the removal of the wife with her husband to England operated as a virtual dissolution of her alle- giance to South Carolina and fixed her future allegiance to the Brit- ish Crown by the treaty of peace of 1783, which provided in effect that those who removed from the colonies into British territory should be presumed to retain their status as British subjects. The same point had arisen, indeed, in two earlier cases, Sewell v. Lee, 1812, 9 Mass., 363, and Barzizas v, Hopkins, 1824, 2 Randolph, In the first the husband, a British subject, withdrew from this coun- try at the time of the Revolution, taking with him his wife, who, after his death, did no! return to the United Slate?, except on a visit. In this case, however, the court refused to decide her alien- age, inasmuch as the defendant had by his plea admitted her ability to sue. In Barzizas v. Hopkins, it will be recalled (see case as discussed above), the question was raised and the court expressed an opinion (dictum) on the matter, but the question could not have been up for decision under the facts. In Trimbles >\ Harrison, 1840, 1 B. Mon., 140, the matter received consideration, and while the principle was recognized that a woman by marriage to a nonresident foreigner might lose her American citizenship, the conclusion seems to have been reached on the supposition that some act of expatriation would be necessary. In Beck v. McGillis, 1850, 9 Barb., 35, the facts were that a native- born American citizen, resident at the time in Montreal, intermar- ried with one McGillis, " who then was and has ever since remained and now is an alien from the Government of the United States and a subject of the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." Of this marriage there were a number of children. In passing upon the rights of Mrs. McGillis and the children to take under a will, the the court said : As to tlie capacity of McGillis and wife and their children to take under the will. Mrs. McGillis was born a citizen of the United States. While yet a minor _she intermarried with a subject of Great Britain, but neither her marriage nor her residence in a foreign country constitutes her an alien. Whether, indeed, a citizen can, by any mere act of his own, dissolve his native allegiance and become an alien, is not definitively settled in this country. The question has been regarded as one of much difficulty as well as delicacy, and though frequently discussed before the Supreme Court of the United States, it has never, I believe, been regarded as the leading point in the case presented, so as to call for the judgment of the court. But it has been decided by that court that the marriage of a feme sole with an alien husband does not produce a dissolution of her native allegiance. (Citing Shanks v. Dupont, supra.) The results reached by these courts would seem entirely sound under the views they have taken with reference to the rights of aliens marrying an American citizen prior to the statute of 1855. 152 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. The same question has been before the Federal courts in two fairly recent cases since the statute of 1855. In the earlier case, Jennes v. Landes, 1897, 84 Fed., 13, the question really was as to whether or not by marriage to an alien foreigner the wife acquired the status of her husband. Evidence had been introduced to show that a Canadian statute provided for such a contingency, but the court declined to recognize in Canada the right to legislate on the subject of British allegiance. It was remarked, however, that if she should plead the statute of seventh and eighth Vict., chap. 66, that the court would be forced to regard her as a British subject. The last case in which the question seems to have been up is Ruck- gaber v. Moore, 1900, 104 Fed., 947, where the court declared that a woman marrying an alien becomes a foreign citizen, provided there " be that withdrawal from her native country or equivalent act ex- pressive of her election to renounce her former citizenship as a con- sequence of her marriage." C. A NATURALIZED AMERICAN CITIZEN ( WOMAN ) MARRIES A FOREIGN CITIZEN. The leading case on this, point is Pequignpt v. Detroit, 1883, 16 Fed., 211, where it appeared that a woman born in France of French parents emigrated to America with her parents when she was 6 or 7 years old. The parents were never naturalized. She herself married in 1 863 one Partridge, who was a native born American citizen, and of course under the statute* of 1855 became thereby an American citizen. After living with Partridge for some fourteen years she was divorced and shortly afterwards married Augustine Pequignot, " who was himself born in France in 1835, and has never become an American citizen, or even declared his intention to do so. The plaintiff is still living in this State with him as his wife." On this state of facts the court held that she was an alien and incompetent to sue as such in the Federal court. As already noted, this case was before the court in Comitis" v. Parkerson, and while disapproving of the holding of the case, the court there called attention to the following distinction between the cases : In that case (Pequignot v. Detroit) the facts characterizing the residence of the husband and wife may have made it what the public writers term " temporary residence," whereas the intent of the plaintiff and her husband was to remain in the United States always. The question thus seems to be reduced to one either of domicile after marriage, or to a question of expatriation. In Kreitz v. Behrens- meyer, the court made use of the following language : The citizenship of a woman thus acquired (by marriage with a citizen hus- band) is not lost by the subsequent death of her husband; and her afterwards intermarrying with an alien. If the courts take the position announced in Comitis v. Parker- son, and also follow the holdings in such cases as Ware v. Wisner, supra; Halsey v. Beer, supra (to the effect that an alien woman non- resident marrying a nonresident American citizen becomes thereby an American citizen) , and if foreign countries assume the same posi- tion, we shall have in every case of naturalization by marriage, for which naturalization the statutes of England, France, Germany, and America provide, a case of dual allegiance, because under the rule CITIZENSHIP. OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 153 announced in Halsey v. Beer the King of Italy might insist that the native-born citizen wife of Augustine Comitis became a subject, by that marriage, of Italy, and it must be deemed immaterial, under the decision of Halsey v. Beer, that the husband in the Comitis case was a permanent resident of America.' From the standpoint of -comity and the avoidance of conditions of dual allegiance the decision in Be- quignot v. Detroit seems the sounder. / Chapter IV. — Naturalization by admission of a new State into the Union. Section 1. — Admission of a Territory as a State. In the admission of new Territories as States, Congress has usually undertaken to declare who of the inhabitants of the State shall be deemed citizens. In some cases, as will be seen later (see Chapter VI), inhabitants have already been citizens of the United States before the admission of the Territory as a State. This is perhaps usually true of the Western States, which have been colonized more or less completely by citizens of the older States. In some in- stances, however, the inhabitants of the Territory have not been citizens of the United States. This was the case in the territory of Orleans, the inhabitants of which before the admission of the Ter- ritory as a State were deemed citizens of the Territory. It has been determined that these citizens became citizens of the United States by virtue of the admission of that Territory to the Union as the State of Louisiana, and those have been declared to be citizens of the Territory who were resident in it and who exercised certain political and civil rights. The court reached the conclusion that one who had exercised such rights and had such residence became, by the admis- sion of the State into the Union, .a citizen of the United States. The following is the line j>f^ argument adopted : By the third section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United < States, it is provided that " new States may be admitted by the Congress into the Union," and the second section of the same article directs that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." It is impossible to give to the provisions of these two sec- tions their effect, in the opinion of the counsel for the motion, without recog- nizing, as a constitutional principle, the position that, on the admission of a hew State into tbe Union, its citizens, the members who compose it, become ipso facto entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, consequently to those of citizens of the United States. (Desbois' Case, 1812, 2 Martin, 185.) This case was fol lowed and approved in United States v. Laverty, 1813, 3 Martin, 736, which was m turn approved and the doctrine recognized in Dxed Scott v. Sanford, 1856, 19 How., 393, 525. The principle announced in the case was limited in State v. Brimrose, 1842, 3 Ala., 546, so as to include only those who were inhabitants of the territory of Orleans at the time of the treaty. This limitation would have changed the decision in Desboi's case. However!, it would seem that it is not necessary that the individual should be a " citizen of the admitted territory if the act admitting the State and the State constitution provide for the citizenship of ' inhabitants ' of the State." Under such a provision those may become citizens who are neither native born nor naturalized, providing they werf residents at the 154 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. date specified— Attorney-General v. Detroit, 1889, 78 Mich., 545, 563. Moreover, it is clear, as suggested above, that inhabitants of terri- tories may be citizens of the United States before the admission of the territory as a State, and that, too, where the party is not a settler from one of the older States who has carried his citizenship with him. The treaty of 1819, by which we acquired Florida, provided for the citizenship at the time the territory was transferred of all its inhabi- tants. Other territories have been admitted under provisions which have been declared to make valid incomplete naturalization on the part of inhabitants. For example, where the inhabitant has taken out his first papers, it has been held that the fact that he neglected to take out his second papers had no effect upon his citizenship. See Boyd -v. Nebraska, 1892, 143 U. S., 135; Bollm v. Nebraska, 1900, 176 U. S., 73, 88; Bahuaud v. Bize, 1901, 105 Fed., 485. Section 2. — Admission of sovereign States. The status of those who were inhabitants of the original States was set forth in Minor v. Happersett, 1874, 21 Wall., 162, 167. Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Con- stitution of the United States was adopted because ipso facto a citizen — a mem- ber of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons asso- ciating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. It would seem wholly logical therefore to say that whenever a • sovereign State is admitted into the Union its citizens must become citizens of the United States, since such States are admitted on an absolute equality with the original States. This has been the effect of the decisions. In 1853 the supreme court of Texas, in the case of Cryer v. Andrews, 1853, 11 Tex., 171, 183, the court used the following lan- guage: When the Congress of the United States, under the authority to admit new States, receiy.es- -a— foreign, nation into the confederacy, the laws of these re- spective nations, in relation to the naturalization of individual immigrants, have no application to the respective citizens of each. By the very act of union, the citizens of each become citizens of the government or governments formed by this union. The position which has been sometimes broached, that the citizens of Texas must submit to the laws of naturalization before they can become citizens of the United States, is quite preposterous. No such doctrine was ever admitted or applied to the citizens or inhabitants_xif—Lauisiana or Florida — countiies_ajajuired__byi purchase. (2 Mart., 158; 3 Mart, 733.) Much less is it applicable to the citizens of a State which, by voluntary treaty or legislation, becomes incorporated into tbe United States. And the same court a few years later said : But when the annexation to the United States took place in 1845 we became a part and parcel of the United States, and none of the citizens of the United States were aliens to Texas, and the citizens of Texas would be in their own country from the St. Lawrence to the Gulf of Mexico. (Barrett v. Kelly, 1868, 31 Tex., 476, 480). In McKinney v. Saviego, 1855, 18 How., 235, the Supreme Court declared that to be a citizen of the United States by virtue of the admission of Texas one must have been a citizen of the State when it was admitted, and since the constitution of Texas provided that only those who were resident in Texas at the date of the declaration of independence should be citizens, one who left the State before the CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 155 declaration of independence was not a citizen of the State and so not a citizen of the United States. The same question has been up quite recently in the Supreme Court, and the question as to citizenship was disposed of by Chief Justice Fuller in the following language : But it is contended that by his stay in Texas of less than six months Contzen became one of the people of Texas ; that the people were admitted into the Union, and that all who were competent thereupon became citizens of the United States. In other words, that the effect of the proceedings through which annexation and admission were accomplished was not simply to collectively make citizens of the United States of all the then citizens of Texas, but to col- lectively naturalize all who might have been naturalized in Texas, but had not been, and had in no way signified their election to become citizens of the United States. And that this included alien minors independently of their parents. We can not concur in this view, and do not think such was the intention of Congress or of the people applying for admission. Texas occupied toward the United States the position of an independent sovereignty. Its citizens were determined by its laws, and they prescribed the manner in which aliens might become citizens. The United States admitted Texas as one of the States of the Union with its population as it stood. Those who were citizens of the State became citizens of the United States, while aliens were relegated for naturalization to the laws of the United States upon that subject. (Contzen v. United States, 1900, 179 U. S., 191 ; S. C. below, 1898, 33 Court of Claims, 475.) Chapter V. — Collective naturalization. It is apparent that naturalization by the admission of a territory" as a State, or of a sovereign State as a State of the Union, as well as naturalization by treaty, are instances of collective naturalization. The cases treated under those headings will, therefore, usually be in point upon the present question, and some of the best instances of col- lective naturalization by treaty are those under which Indian tribes have been naturalized. One case, however, which may not be classed with any of the others, is that of Kircher v. Murray, 1893, 54 Fed., 547, in which it appeared that in the " declaration of the people of Texas, in general convention assembled," adopted November 7, 1835, it was provided that Texas would " reward, by donations of land, aU who voluntetred their services in the present struggle and receive them as citizens." Under the promise of this declaration, a citizen of Illinois emigrated to Texas and served in their army as a surgeon. It was held that he became a citizen of the State of Texas. Chapter VI. — Naturalization by treaty. The question of naturalization by treaty may be passed over with- out any considerable comment. The general principles controlling such cases are entirely clear and have been understood and acted upon by the Government from the first. In Tobin v. Walkinshaw, 1856, 1 McAll., 186, 192, McAllister, J., made as succinct a statement of these principles as, perhaps, is to be found in the cases. He said : By a principle of international law. on a transfer of territory by one nation to another, the relations of the inhabitants toward each other undergo no change; but their relations with their former sovereign are dissolved and new ones between them and the government which has acquired their territory are 156 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATBIATION, ETC. created. The same act which transferred their territory transfers the alle- giance of those who remain in it, and the law which may be denominated politi- cal is changed. American Insurance Co. v. Canter (1 Peters, 542). This right to change the political relations of the inhabitants of a ceded territory arises out of the character of those relations as recognized by the law of nature and nations. Birth binds man by the tie of natural allegiance to his native soil, and such allegiance gives, by the principles of universal law, to the country in which he was born, rights unknown to mere voluntary or statutory allegiance. Upon the right to transfer this natural allegiance has been ingrafted this right of election in the party whether he will retain his allegiance to his old' sover- eign or pay allegiance to the new. Marshall, p. J., in the American Insurance Company case (referred to by Judge McAllister) expressed the principle in this language: The usage of the world is, if a nation be not entirely subdued, to consider the holding of conquered territory as a mere military occupation, until its fate shall be determined at the treaty of peace. If it be ceded by the treaty, the acquisition is confirmed and the ceded territory becomes a part of the nation to which it is! annexed, either on the terms stipulated' in 1 the treaty of cession or on such as its new master shall impose. On such transfer of terri- tory it has never been held that the relations of the inhabitants with each other undergo any change. Their relations with their former sovereign are dissolved and new relations are created between them and the government which has acquired their territory. The same act which transfers their country transfers the allegiance of those who remain in it ; and the law, which may be denomi- nated political, is necessarily changed, although that which regulates the inter- course and general conduct of individuals remains in force until altered by the newly created power of the state. The question as to the status of peoples residing in territory ceded to us has arisen in connection with almost every treaty that we have made. The more important ones are collected below : For decisions under the treaty with England of 1783 on questions of citizenship see Davis v. Darrow, 1834, 12 Wend., 54 ; Moore v. Wil- son, 1837, 10 Yerg., 406; Young v. Peck, 1841, 26 Wend., 613; Calais v. Marshfield, 1849, 30 Me., 511 ; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 1830, 3 Pet., 99. Under the treaty of 1794 with England: Trimbles v, Harrison, 1840, 1 B. Mon., 140 ; Crane v. Reeder, 1872, 25 Mich., 303. Under the treaty of 1803 with France: Desbois' Case, 1812, 2 Mart., 185 ; United States v. Laverty, 1813, 3 Mart., 736 ; In re Harold, 1840, 1 Clark (Pa. L. J.), 214; State v. Primrose. 1843, 3 Ala., 546. Undqr the treatv of 1819 with Spain: American Insurance Co. v. Canter, 1828, 1 Pet., 511 ; Tannis v. Saint Cyre, 1852, 21 Ala., 449. Under the treaty of 1848 with Mexico : United States v. Lucero, 1869, 1 N. Mex., 422; United States v. Santistevan, 1847, id., 583; In re Rodriguez, 1897, 81 Fed., 337 ; Quintano v. Tompkins, 1853, 1 N. Mex., 29 ; Car- ter v. Territory, 1859, id.. 317; McKinney v. Saviego, 1855, 18 How., 235; Tobin v. Walkinshaw, 1856, 1 McAll.. 186; People v. De La Guerra, 1870, 40 Cal., 311; and see Murphy v. Ramsey, 1884, 114 U. S., 15, 44. Under the treaty of 1867 with Russia : Rasmussen v. United States, 1904, 197 U. S., 516. Under the treaty of 1900 with Spain : In re Gonzalez, 1902, 118 Fed., 941 ; Gonzalez v. Williams, 1903, 192 U. S., 1. The cases show clearly that the time at which inhabitants become citizens of the United States in acquired territory is a matter for specification in the treaty. For instance, it appears that in the treaty of 1819 the rights of citizenship were conferred upon the inhabitants of the ceded territory of Florida before the territory was admitted as a State of the Union, American Ins. Co. v. Canter, supra ; and so as CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 157 to the treaty of 1867 with Russia, Rasmussen v. United States, supra. On the other hand, the treaty of 1803 provided that the inhabitants should become citizens " as soon as possible." State v. Primrose, supra. The two cases already cited, Desbois's Case, 1812, 2 Mart., 185, and United States v. Laverty, 1813, 3 Mart., 736, show that under this latter treaty the inhabitants before the admission of the Territory of New Orleans as the State of Louisiana were considered as citizens of the Territory of New Orleans, who were made citizens of the United States by admission into the Union. The case of In re Harold, supra, presented a rather interesting state of facts, for it appeared there that the party who was an inhabitant of the Territory of New Orleans moved from that Territory to Pennsylvania in 1811, and it was not shown whether the removal was before or after the admission of the Territory as a State. The court held, however, that the inhabitant was a citizen of the United States. The same question has been and is still much discussed as to the status of the peoples in Porto Rico and the Philippines, under the treaty of 1900, but there has been no decision of the question. This question has been sufficiently discussed in Part I, Ch. I, sec. 1, D. The treaty of 1848 seems to have conferred citizenship upon all the inhabitants of the ceded territory who did not, within* a specified time, declare their intention to retain their Mexican citizenship, though it has been held that they were not entitled to all the privi- leges of citizens of the United States until the ceded territory was incorporated into a State. People r. De La Guerra, supra; and see Murphy v. Ramsey, supra. Treaties have given the rights of citizenship, or the right to elect to become a citizen, to persons who, under our own naturalization laws, might not be naturalized. For example, the treaty of 1848 provided that Indians who were citizens of Mexico might become citizens of theUnited States. In re Rodriguez, supra ; United States v. Lucero, supra ; United States v. Santistevan, supra ; and see as to the status of a free negro inhabitant of the ceded territory of Florida under the treaty of 1819, Tannis v. Saint Cyre, supra. As already suggested, treaties usually provide in effect that the inhabitants of the ceded territory have a certain time within which to elect to retain their old allegiance. If they do not signify properly the intention within the time specified, they are then considered citizens of the United States. Tne individual treaties must be con- sulted in each case to determine the particular way in which under that treaty such an election must be shown. The following cases will, however, be found to bear upon this particular question : Under the early treaties with England of 1783 and 1794, see Calais v. Marsh- field, supra ; Young v. Peck, supra ; Davis v. Darrow, supra ; Moore t*. Wilson, supra; Crane v. Reeder, supra; Trimbles v. Harrison, supra ; McKinney v. Saviego, supra." And under the treaty of 1848 a For a discussion of the effect of a party's withdrawal from a revolting ter- ritory during the revolution, upon his citizenship in the seceding territory after independence is established, see Hollingsworth v. Duane, 1801, Wall. C. C, 50; Kilham v. Ward, 1806, 2 Mass., 236; Ainslie v. Martin, 1813, 9 Mass., 454; Man- chester v. Boston, 1819, 16 Mass., 230; Dos Hermanos, 1817, 2 Wheat., 76; Coxe r Gulick, 1829. 5 Halst, N. J., 328; White v. Burnley, 1857, 20 How., 235; McKinney v. Saviego, 1855, 18 How., 235 ; Jones v. McMasters, 1857, 20 How.. 8. 158 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. with Mexico, see Tobin a. Walkinshaw, supra; Carter v. Territory, supra; Quintano v. Tompkins, supra; and generally on the whole question of election, Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, supra. Chapter VII. — Naturalization by conquest. But few cases have arisen in the courts in which the status of peo- ple in conquered territory has been before the courts for adjudication. The principles are well settled and were in a way set forth in the quotation from American Insurance Co. i>. Canter in the preceding chapter. Chief Justice Marshall", in the case of Johnson v. Mcintosh, 1823, 8 Wheat., 543, 589, laid them more fully, as follows: The title by conquest is acquired and maintained by force. The conquerer prescribes its limits. Humanity, however, acting on public opinion, has estab- lished, as a general rule, that the conquered shall not be wantonly oppressed, and that their condition shall remain as eligible as is compatible with the objects of the conquest. Most usually, they are incorporated with the victorious nation, and become subjects or citizens of the government with which they are connected. The new and old members of the society mingle with each other; the distinction between them is gradually lost, and they make one people. Where this incorporation is practicable, humanity demands, and a wise policy requires, that the rights of the conquered to property should remain unimpaired ; that the new subjects should be governed as equitably as the old, and that con* fidence in their security should gradually banish the painful sense of being separated from their ancient connections and united by force to strangers. When the conquest is complete, and the conquered inhabitants can be blended with the conquerors, or safely governed as a distinct people, public opinion, which not even the conqueror can disregard, imposes these restraints upon him ; and he can not neglect them without injury to his fame and the hazard to his power. In United States v. Percheman, 7 Pet., 51, 86, the same chief justice said: It may not be unworthy of remark that it is very unusual, even in cases of conquest, for the conqueror to do more than to displace the sovereign and assume dominion over the country. * * * The people change their allegiance ; their relation to their ancient sovereign is dissolved ; but their relations to each other and their rights of property remain undisturbed. And see United States v. Repentigny, 1866, 5 Wall., 211. The question was squarely before the Court of Claims in Brown's case, 1869, 5 Court of Claims, 571, in which one Brown, formerly a subject of the Kingdom of Hanover, sought to recover the proceeds from the sale of cotton seized by the United States Government dur- ing the civil war. In 1866 Hanover had become incorporated in the Kingdom of Prussia by conquest. Brown, therefore, insisted that he was a Prussian subject, and so had a right to sue the Government under the provisions of the statute of 1868, which limited the right of suit to those aliens " who are citizens or subjects of any govern- ment which accords to citizens of the United States the right to prose- cute claims against such governments in its courts." Prussia per- mitted suits by American citizens in its courts. The question of jurisdiction, therefore, turned upon whether or not Brown was a subject of Prussia. In the course of his opinion, Nott, J., speaking for the court, said : Hanover, by conquest, in 1866 became incorporated in the Kingdom of Prus- sia. * * * When the territory and government of a kingdom pass to and become merged in the territory and government of another nation, all of its subjects pass also. The tie which binds and carries them is not bodily presence, but allegiance. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED, STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 159 Brown, therefore, was declared a subject of Prussia and within the privilege of the Federal statute. The question as to the change of allegiance was presented in Leit- ensdorfer v. Webb, 1857, 20 How., 17(5, in which the status of an inhabitant of New Mexico was in question. Mr. Chief Justice Daniel, who delivered the opinion of the court, began by saying : Upon the acquisition, in the year 1846, by the arms of the United States, of the Territory of New Mexico, the civil government of this Territory having been overthrown, the officer, General Kearney, holding possession for the United States, in virtue of the power of conquest and occupancy, and in obedience to the duty of maintaining the security of the inhabitants in their persons and property, ordained, under the sanction and authority of the United States, a provisional or temporary government for the acquired country. By this sub- stitution of a new supremacy, although the former political relations of the inhabitants were dissolved, their private- relations, their rights vested under the government of their former allegiance, or those arising from contract or usage, remained in full force and unchanged, except so far as they were in their nature and character found to be in conflict with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or with any regulations which the conquering and occupying authority should ordain. And this seems a fair statement of the law on the question. PART III.— LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP. Chapter 1. — Under statutory provision. Section 1. — Deserting soldiers. By an act approved March 3, 1865 (Stats, at Large, chap. 79, sec. 21), Congress provided — That in addition to the other lawful penalties of the crime of desertion from the military or naval service, all persons who have deserted the military or naval service of the United States, who shall not return to said service or report themselves to a provost-marshal within sixty days after the proclamation hereinafter mentioned, shall be deemed and taken to have voluntarily relin- quished and forfeited their rights of citizenship and their rights to become citizens. This act has been before the courts in a number of cases, and while the courts have sustained it, they have construed it very strictly, and consequently have insisted that in order for it to apply the person in question must have been convicted by a court-martial. Goetscheus v. Matthewson, 1875, 61 N. Y., 420 ; Huber v. Keily, 1866, 53 Pa. St., 112; State v. Symonds, 1869, 57 Me., 148; Severance v. Healey, 1870, 50 N. H., 449; Holt v. Holt, 1871, 59 Me., 464; and see United States v. Snow, 1877, 2 Flipp., 113. Moreover, it must appear that the find- ing of the court-martial was approved. " It (the act) means," said the court, " that the forfeiture which it prescribes, like all other penalties for desertion, must be adjudged to the convicted person, after trial by a court-martial, and sentence approved." (Huber v. Reily, supra.) And the conviction in such case can be proved only by a duly authenticated record. Goetscheus v. Matthewson, supra. 160 citizenship of the united states, expatriation, etc. Chapter 2. — Expatriation. Section 1. — Bight of expatriation. The question of the right of a citizen to expatriate himself from the American Union has been the subject of considerable discussion by the courts. One of the earliest expressions on the question is to be found in Jansen v. Brigantine, 1794, Bee, 11, 23, where the court, commenting upon the alleged expatriation of one of the parties to the action said: I have perused, with attention, the cases cited on both sides as to the right of expatriation and emigration, in the general manner there laid down, where no legal prohibition exists and no prejudice is done thereby. The act of natu- ralization of Congress and the constitution of this State concur to sanction this doctrine, and we should with an ill grace refuse to our own citizens what we thus hold out to others. One year later the question presented itself before the Supreme Court in Talbot v. Jansen, 1795, 3 Dall., 133, 162, and the court dis- cussed the matter at considerable length. In the course of his opin- ion he said : 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 acci- dently 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 appear clearly to recognize. The only difference of opinion is as to the proper manner of executing this right. Some hold that it is a natural, inalienable right in each individual ; that it is a right upon which no act of legislation can lawfully be exercised, inas- much as a legislature 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 sanction of the constitution of this State, if not of some other States in the Union. I must, however, presume to differ from it, tor the following reasons : 1. It is not the exercise of a natural right, in which the individual is to be considered as a lone concern. As every man is entitled to claim rights in society, which it is the duty of the society to protect, he, in his turn, is under a solemn 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 with whom he is associated. The view here expressed seems to have been assumed by the court in Santissima Trinidad, 1822, 7 Wheat., 347, where the court declined to give any opinion as to whether or not " an American citizen may, independent of any legislation to this effect, throw off his own alle- giance to his native country." In the earlier case of the United States v. Gilles, 1815, 1 Pet. C. 0, 159, 161, Washington, J., declared: That I must be more enlightened upon this subject than I have yet been before I can admit that a citizen of the United States can throw off his alle- giance to his country without some law authorizing him to do so. And see also the expressions of Chief Justice Marshall in the Charming Betsy, 1804, 2 Cranch., 64, 120. However, in Mcllviane v. Coxe, 1802, 4 Cranch., 209, the court recognized the validity of the law of New Jersey which prohibited the expatriation of certain English sympathizers described, insisting that they were still citi- zens of New Jersey. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 1(31 The Kentucky, in Alsberry v. Hawkins, 1839, 9 Dana, 177, 178, had, however, no doubt upon the matter. In the course of the opinion of Chief Justice Eobertson, the following doctrine was- an- nounced : Whatever may be the speculative or practical doctrines of feudal govern- ments 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 citizen with the presumed concurrence of the govern- ment without its formal or expressed sanction. Expatriation may be con- sidered a practical and fundamental doctrine of America. American history, American institutions, and American legislation, all recognize 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 renunciation 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 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 or citizen 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 so long as that government shall seem to acquiesce in his renunciation of his political rights and obligations. The same view, substantially, was expressed by one of the Federal circuit courts in Stoughton v. Taylor, before 1840, 2 Paine C. C, 656, 661 : " In this country," said Van Ness, J., " expatriation is conceived to be a fundamental right. As far as the principles main- tained and the practice adopted by the Government of the United States is evidence of its existence, it is fully recognized. It is con- stantly exercised and has ne'ver'in any way been restrained." The above cases represent thoroughly the legal thought on the question during the period covered by the cases. As will be noted, the earlier cases, with the exception of the earliest, and all of the Supreme Court cases, seem uncertain as to the right of expatriation in an American citizen in the absence of some authorizing statute of Congress. Some of the State courts and one of the circuit courts used strong language, however, in favor of that right. The matter stood thus until 1866, when, owing to the Fenian trouble in Great Britain, and the consequent troubles into which some naturalized Americans fell, Congress passed an act " concerning the rights of American citi- zens in foreign States," the preamble of which read : Whereas 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 ; and Whereas, in the recognition of this principle, this Government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and" invested them with the rights of citi- zenship ; and Whereas, it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of foreign States, owing allegiance to the governments thereof ; and Whereas, it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed : Therefore, * * * Since the passage of this act the question does not seem to have been squarely raised in the Supreme Court, and consequently its meaning with reference to the right of American citizens to expatri- ate themselves has not by that body been pronounced upon. The act has, however, been before the Federal courts a number of times ; but the results have not been uniform. H. Doc. 326, 59-2 11 162 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. In 1879, in United States v. Crook, 5 Dill., 453, 464, the court, in passing upon the right of an Indian to forsake his tribal relations, took occasion to speak of the right of expatriation, which he denomi- nated a " God-given right." In 1897, Jennes v. Landes, 84 Fed., 73, 74, the statute was expressly referred to by the court, and an inter- pretation given of its meaning, Hanford, district judge, saying: A change of allegiance from one government to another can only be effected by the voluntary action of the subject, complying fully with the conditions of naturalization laws, so that there is concurrent action and assent on the part of both the subject aud the government to which the new allegiance attaches. Authorities entitled to great respect have been cited in the argument, holding that it is also necessary to have assent on the part of the government renounced. In my opinion that rule no longer obtains in the United States, since Congress. by the act of July 27, 1868, now reenacted in section 1999, Revised Statutes, has expressly declared it to be the policy of our Government that the right of expa- triation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoy- ment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A different view of the act, however, was taken in Comitis v. Parkerson, 1893, 56 Fed., 556, 559, where the court, after discussing the early cases and the uncertainty which had existed in the various departments of the Government as to the right of expatriation on the part of an American citizen, and, further, after a careful analysis of the statute itself and its terms, expressed the following conclusion : It is to be observed that the act itself, as does its title, deals only with the protection of aliens by birth who have become citizens by naturalization. As to them it declares it to be the determination of the United States to accord to them when in foreign states the same protection as is accorded to native-born citizens similarly situated. The whole scope and force of the act, when most liberally construed, even when expanded by the more general terms of the pre- amble, declares that naturalized citizens having, according to the principles of our Government, the same rights as native-born citizens shall have by law the same protection abroad. As to whether allegiance can be acquired or lost by any other .means than statutory naturalization is left by Congress in precisely the same situation as it was before the passage of this act. During the year 1868, and since, five treaties have been entered into between the United States and foreign governments based upon this statute, in which the right of expatria- tion is dealt with, * * * and in all these treaties the right, is confined, as is the statute, to that of citizens or subjects of our country who have become ■citizens or subjects of others by direct statutory naturalization. So that, with reference to the question before the court, the law is left where it was previous to the year 1868 and Congress has made no law authorizing any implied renunciation of citizenship. This view of the statute seems sound, and the question, therefore, is still more or less an open one whether a native American citizen may expatriate himself. Section 2. — What may amount to expatriation. It has been said " that a man could not throw off his natural alle- giance, except in assuming some new citizenship," Baird v. Byrne, 1845, 3 Wall., jr., 1, 12 ; and, as already suggested above, other courts have held that it must be with the sanction of the government being forsaken. See also Shearer v. Clay, 1822, 1 Litt. (Ky.), 260. A. EXPATRIATION BY TAKING OATH OF . ALLEGIANCE TO A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT. One of the earliest cases in which the question was presented as to the effect upon American citizenship of the taking of an oath of allegiance to a foreign power was presented in Talbot v. Jansen, 1795, CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATKIATION, ETC. 163 3 Dall., 133, 164, and the court, in denying that such had the effect cf expatriating the citizen, used the following language : Admitting he had a right to expatriate himself without any law prescribing the method of his doing so we surely must have some evidence that he had done it There is none, but that he went to the West Indies and took an oath to the French Republic and became a citizen there. I do not think that merely taking such an oath and being admitted a citizen there in itself is evidence of a bona fide expatriation or completely discharges the obligations he owes to his own country. Had there been any restrictions by our own law on his quitting this country, could any act of a foreign country operate as a repeal of these? Certainly not. When be goes there, they know nothing of him, perhaps, but from his own representation. He becomes a citizen of the new country at his peril. The act is complete if he has legally quitted his own ; if not, it is subordinate to the allegiance he originally owed. By allegiance I mean that tie by which a citizen of the United States is bound as a member of the society. Did any man suppose when the rights of citizenship were so freely and honorably bestowed on the unfortunate Marquis de la Fayette that that absolved him as a subject or citizen of his own country? It had only this effect: That whenever he came into this country and chose to reside here he was ipso facto to be deemed a citizen without anything further. The same consequence, I think, would follow in respect to rights of citizenship conferred by the French Republic upon some illustrious characters in our own and other countries. If merely intended, as ingeniously suggested at the bar, that upon going to France and performing the usual requisites they should be then French citizens, where is the honor of it, since any man may avail himself of an indiscriminate indul- gence granted by law. Some disagreeable dilemmas may be occasioned by this double citizenship, but the principles, as I have stated them, appear to me to be warranted by law and reason, and if any difficulties arise they show more strongly the importance of a law regulating the exercise of the right in question. In the Charming Betsy, supra, the same result was reached with reference to one who had taken the oath of allegiance to Denmark, and in Fish v. Stoughton, 1801, 2 Johns. Cas., 407, the court held that where a naturalized citizen, formerly a British subject, had taken the oath of allegiance to the King of Spain and had been appointed con- sul for Spain in New York, he still remained an American citizen. However, in Brown v. Dexter, 1884, 66 Cal., 39, the court regarded as an alien one who had moved from the United States into Canada and had there taken the oath of allegiance and become a permanent resi- dent. And see Kircher v. Murray, 1893, 54 Fed., 617. B. BY PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES UNDER APPOINTMENT FROM A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT. As already pointed out in the case of Fish v. Stoughton, supra, the performance of the duties of consul for another country, even if accompanied by an oath of allegiance, has no effect upon the citizen- ship of the person so acting. A similar result was reached with refer- ence to the holding of local offices in Calais v. Marshfield, 1849, 30 Me., 515. C. PERFORMANCE OF MILITARY DUTY, (a) EXPEDITIONS AGAINST NEUTRALS. In Santissima Trinidad, 1821, 1 Brock., 478, s. c. on appeal 7 Wheat., 283, it appeared that an American citizen had notified the American consul in a foreign port of his intention to expatriate himself, and that he subsequently went into the naval service of a neutral country. The court held that these acts would not amount to an expatriation. In Kircher v. Murray, supra, however, where an American citizen 164 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. emigrated to Texas and served in the Texas army during its revolu- tionary struggles, and through his services was made a citizen of the State of Texas, the court held not only that he had himself become a citizen but that his wife was also a citizen of the State of Texas. This <;ase does not of itself go to the point that the husband or wife had expatriated themselves since the case could have been decided the same way by recognizing dual allegiance." (b) EXPEDITIONS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. In State v. Adams, 1876, 45 Iowa, 99, it appeared that an American •citizen had involuntarily served in the Canadian army during the war of 1812 between England and the United States. The court held that such involuntary service did not amount to an act of expatria- tion. And see Mcllvaine v. Coxe, supra. In Burkett v. McCarty. 1874, 10 Buch., 758, the validity of an act of the Kentucky legislature was called in question, known as the expatriation act, which provided that those who joined the Confederate army should be deemed to have denationalized themselves, and so, of course, have forfeited their citizenship. The court held that such an act was unconstitutional and that citizenship was not forfeited by fighting in the Confederate army. (It should be noted that this seemingly involved the question of state citizenship only.) D. EXERCISIKG THE FUNCTIONS OF A CITIZEN. The courts have also held that it is immaterial that an American citizen moves to a foreign country and there exercises the functions of a citizen, such as voting ; he still retains in spite of this his former citizenship. Calais v. Marshfield, supra; State >•. Adams, supra; Ware v. Wisner, 1883, 50 Fed., 310. E. RESIDENCE. A number of cases have stated that in order to effect a change of ■allegiance there must be a change of domicil. Thus where an Amer- ican citizen, while anouncing his intention to expatriate himself, went personally to a foreign country but left his family in the United States, it was held that he had not changed his domicil. Santissima Trinidad, supra ; Mcllvaine v. Coxe, supra. In some cases the term expatriation seems to have been made also synonymous with emigra- tion. Jansen v. Brigantine, 1794, Bee, 1123; Murray v. McCarty, 1811, 2 Munf., 393, 397. The question of expatriation by residence may arise in connection with two classes of people, native citizens and naturalized citizens. (a) NATIVE AMERICAN CITIZENS. It may be stated, as a general proposition, that mere residence abroad for purposes of business does not change the allegiance of a subject or citizen. This position was very fully laid down by Mar- shall, Chief Justice, in the Charming Betsy, supra, where he said : 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. law, « In Calais v. Marshfield, supra, the citizen had performed voluntary service in the local militia, but this was declared to be insufficient to produce expatriation. CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 165 is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide. The cases cited at bar, and the arguments drawn from the general conduct of the United States on this interesting subject, seem completely to establish the principle that an American citizen may acquire in a foreign country the commercial privi- leges attached to his domicil, 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 circum- stances 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 his own gov- ernment; and if, without the violation of any municipal law, he should be oppressed unjustly, he would have a right to claim that protection, and the inter- position of the American Government in his favor would be considered as a justifiable interpositon. 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 punishment for any crime committed against the United States, a point not intended to be decided, yet it certainly 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 him 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 bona fide property of a Danish burghar, is not forfeitable, in consequence of her being employed in carrying on trade and commerce with a French island. The question has come up under a variety of circumstances. In Beck v. McGillis, 1850, 9 Barb., 35, a native-born citizen went abroad, where he married and remained. The court held that he had not lost his citizenship. And see Albany v. Derby, 1858, 30 Vt., 718, where the question seems to be made to turn upon the animus of the residence. . In Lynch v. Clark, 1844, 1 Sandf. Ch., 583, a native-born American of alien parents returns to the country of his parent's nativity, where he remained. The court held that he had not lost his citizenship. And see, generally, the section above on the rights of children born in America of alien parents. Of course, in view of these cases, it must follow that where a citi- zen goes abroad merely for pleasure he will not lose his citizenship. United States v. Gillies, 1815, 1 Peters C. C, 159. And see the inter- esting case, already referred to and discussed, of Barzizas v. Hopkins, 1824, 2 Rand., 279. It is clear also from the principle of the above cases that residence abroad for the purpose of obtaining an education will not denationalize a citizen. Matter of Rice, 1877, 7 Bailey, 22. A rather interesting question with reference to foreign residence was raised in the case of Woolbridge v. Wilkins, 1839, 3 How. (Miss.), 360, in which it appeared that a citizen of the United States had been appointed a consul to the State of Texas, where he had gone and taken up his residence. While there he expressed himself as intend- ing to become a citizen of Texas and take up there the practice of law. These statements were relied upon as showing his expatriation. The court, of course, held they had no such force. If the residence abroad by an American citizen has been during a revolution, by which that country has acquired an independent sovereignty, the courts have held that in such case a resident has acquired a citizenship there, and hence has expatriated himself from his native country, since it is presumed that under these conditions the citizen thus resident assisted in the formation of the new state. This was the holding of Alsberry v. Hawkins, supra, and in Moore v. Tinsdale, 1845, 5 B. Mon., 352. The latter case, however, holding 166 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. that as to the wife of a citizen who thus took part in the revolution she might, by coming back into the United States on the death of her husband, with intent to reside here, redintegrate herself as an American citizen. In Alsberry v. Hawkins, where the wife had remained for a number of years subsequent to the revolution, it was held she had become unqualifiedly an alien. (b) NATUEALIZED AMERICAN CITIZEN. First. In the country of the first allegiance: One of the most extreme cases to be found on this point is that of Ypungj ^Peck, 1 839, 21 Wend., 389, s. c. affirmed on appeal, 26 Wendlp^UMrom which decision an appeal was dismissed on a compromise in 1 How., 250. It will be recalled that the facts were that the father of the person in question had emigrated to the United States before or during the revolution, and that he remained here after that war, becoming thereby, under the terms of the treaty, a citizen of the United States.' The child, a daughter, remained in Scotland, the father's native country, until she was 50 years of age, having during that time been married to a native of Great Britain, with whom she lived until he died. The court held that the naturalization of her father had natu- ralized her, and that she had retained her American citizenship. And the same result was reached in another case, almost as strong, Halspy -?;. "Beerj^l.889, 52 Hun., 366, in which a naturalized American citizen, formerly l~British'subject, returned to England, where he married and afterwards lived. ■^_ If these holdings be sound, it would seem, of course, to follow that residence in a foreign country for the purposes of carrying on a busi- ness merely would not effect expatriation, and the decisions have gone to this point — The Frances, 1813, 1 Gall., 614, affirm 8 Cranch. 363 ; the St. Lawrence, 1813, i. d., 467, affirmed 8 Cranch, 434 ; the Venus, 1814, 2 Cranch, 253 — even though the party is conducting a business in the foreign country at the time of war between that country and his own, providing that on the outbreak of the war he puts himself in itinerary for his adopted country. Second. In a country other than that of his first allegiance: This question was presented in the case of Stoughton v. Taylor, supra, where a native of Great Britain had become a naturalized American citizen and later had attempted to denationalize himself as an Amer- ican citizen and become a subject of the Government of Buenos Ayres. He had lived in Buenos Ayres for a short time, and had sailed for a considerable time on one of the public vessels of that Government. The court said: The evidence in this case is emigration more than twelve years since — swear- ing allegiance to another government eight years ago — entering into its service, and continuing in it unifromly from that time to this. On this evidence I can not 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 can not now claim them,' and can not be called on to perform any of the duties incident to that character. F. MARRIAGE TO A FOREIGN SUBJECT. This question has already been treated above in connection with the cases of Jennes v. Landes, 1897, 84 Fed., 73; Pequignot v. Detroit, 1883, 16 Fed., 211; Comitis v. Parkerson, 1893, 56 Fed., 556. In the CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 167 case first named the court recognized that there might be expatriation by virtue of marriage to a foreign subject. In the second case it was expressly held that marriage of a native American woman to a foreign subject denationalized the woman. The third case, which is distin- guishable from the last preceding on its facts (and was so distin- guished by the court) , is in spirit contrary to it, and held that mar- riage to an alien who was a resident in this country had no such effect. Section 3. — Reversion of original citizenship. While this matter has been more or less covered by what has been already said in connection with the last section, it is of sufficient importance to call for a few additional remarks. In Dos Hermanos, 1817, 2 Wheat., 76, 98, the court, in commenting upon the facts of that case, said : In respect to the domicil of Mr. Green, there is certainly much reason to doubt if it would be sufficient to protect him even if he could show himself at the time of the capture a citizen of Carthagena. For, if upon his return to New. Orleans after the war acquired a domicil there (of which the circumstances of his becoming the owner of a privateer in that port affords a strong presump- tion), he became a redintegrated American citizen, and he could not, by an emigration afterwards, flagrante bello, acquire a neutral character, so as to separate himself from that of his native country. In Stoughton v. Taylor, supra, while the court ruled as already indicated on the question of residence in a foreign country, together with an oath of allegiance, it also remarked that there — is another circumstance well worthy of consideration. It appears that the defendant was in the naval service of Great Britain immediately antecedent to his becoming a resident of Buenos Ayres and assuming allegiance to the Gov- ernment of that country. It is well known that upon the principles main- tained by the British Government the native character, if under any circum- stances it can temporarily be lost, easily reverts. A' return to the country, or into its military or naval service, restores it. In the view of that Government, therefore, the defendant was completely a British subject prior to his becoming a citizen of the United Provinces of South America. I am inclined to think that even here this r§turn to the service of his native country must be consid- ered an abandonment and forfeiture of his citizenship. In Moore v. Tisdale, 1845, 5 B. Mon., 352 (in which case it will be remembered the husband and wife had emigrated to Texas during the period of the revolutionary struggle) , the court said : And though it should be farther conceded, which we need not decide, that so long as the coveture might last, and they should continue their residence in Texas, both the husband and wife might be regarded as citizens of Texas, and as aliens to the United States ; still we are not prepared to admit that upon the death of the husband, the survived wife is so bound by his election, and by such acquiescence on her part as may have been prompted by conjugal affection and duty, that her character and rights as a citizen or alien must be irrevocably identified with those which her husband had assumed before his death. * * * we think the inference of alienage, arising from the facts existing at the death of the husband, may be, and is repelled by the subse-, quent fact that within a few months afterwards the widow returned to this State, where she has remained ever since, and without any intention, so far as appears, of ever again residing in Texas. See also Trimbles v. Harrison, 1840, 1 B. Mon., 140, 147, where a child born a British subject, but who subsequently was natural- ized as an American citizen by virtue of the naturalization of his father, who had remained here during the revolution, removed to England, which he made his permanent residence, and there married 168 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. a British subject; he was held not entitled to take land in Kentucky by descent from his father. The principle of reversion has been expressed in these few words, that " the moment a foreign domicil is abandoned the native domicil is reacquired." Green's Son v. Salas, i887, 31 Fed., 106, 112. The principle seems also to have been applied in certain Indian cases, where a white man, adopted into an Indian tribe, later abandoned the tribe and his Indian relationship and resumes the habits and customs of civilization. The courts have held that this act redintegrated him to American citizenship. Ex parte Kenyon, 1878, 5 Dill., 385 ; Roff v. Burney, 1897, 168 U. S., 218. And consult generally the cases above on residence abroad in their native country by naturalized citizens. Section 4. — Effect of expatriation. If the party who alleges expatriation has indeed become a citizen of a foreign country, he has, of course, acquired such rights as a citi- zen as the laws of the foreign state may give. With reference to his status in our own country after his expatriation, Chief Justice Mar- shall, in Santissima Trinidad, supra, said: The individual who divests himself of the obligations of a citizen, if this be within the power of an individual, loses the rights which are connected with those obligations. He becomes an alien. His lands, if he has any, are escheat- able. He can not recover these rights by residence, but must go through that process which the laws prescribe for the naturalization of an alien born. Exhibit A. TEXT OF LAWS. CHAP. III. — An Act To establish an uniform rule of naturalization." Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdic- tion of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be consid- ered as natural born citizens : Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States : Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed. Approved, March 26, 1790. (U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. I, pp. 103-104.) " This act was repealed by an act passed January 29, 1795, chap. 20. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 169 CHAP. XX. — An Act To establish an uniform rule of naturalization ; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject. For carrying into complete effect, the power given by the constitution, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States : Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 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. He shall have declared on oath or affirmation, before the supreme, superior, district or circuit court of some one of the states, or of the territories northwest or south of the river Ohio, or a circuit or district court of the United States, three years, at least, before his admission, that it was bona 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 citizen or subject. Secondly. 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 has resided within the United States, five years at least, and within the state or territory, where such court is at the time held, one year at least ; that he will support the constitution of the United States ; and that he dotb 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 he was before a citizen or subject ; which proceed- ings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court. Thirdly. The court admitting such alien, shall be satisfied that he has resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States five years; and it shall further appear to their satisfaction, that during that time, he has behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same. Fourthly. In case the alien applying to be 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 ; which renunciation shall be recorded in the said court. Sec. 2. Provided always, and be it further enacted. That any alien now resid- ing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States, may be admitted to become a citizen, on his declaring on oath or affirmation, in some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided two years, at least, within and under the jurisdiction of the same, and one year, at least, within the state or territory where such court is at the time held ; that he will support the constitution of the United States ; and that he doth absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name, the prince, potentate, state- or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject ; and moreover on its appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that during the said term of two years, lie has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; and, where the alien applying for admission 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, on his moreover making in the court an express renuncia- tion of his title or order of nobility, before he shall be entitled to such admis- sion ; all of which proceedings, required in this proviso to be performed in the court, shall be recorded by the clerk thereof. Sec. -3. And be it further enacted, That the children of persons duly natural- ized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization ; and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States : Provided, That the right of citi- zenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States : Provided also, 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, with- out the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was pro- scribed. 170 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the act intituled "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed. Approved, January 29, 1795. U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. I, pp. 414hH5. CHAP. LIV. — An Act Supplementary to and to amend the act, intituled "An act to estab- lish an uniform rule of naturalization ; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject." Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That no alien shall be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or of any state, unless in the manner prescribed by the act, intituled "An act to establish an uniform rule of natural- ization ; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject," he shall have declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, five years, at least, before his admission, and shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare and prove, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction in the case, that he has resided within the U nit ed States fourteen years, at least, and within the state or territory where, or for which such court is at the time held, five years, at least, besides conforming to the other declarations, renunciations and proofs, by the said act required, anything therein to the con- trary hereof notwithstanding: Provided, that any alien, who was residing within the limits, and under the jurisdiction of the United States, before the twenty-ninth day of January, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, may, within one year after the passing of this act — and any alien who shall have made the declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United Sates, in conformity to the provisions of the act intituled "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject," may, within four years after having made the declaration afore- said, be admitted to become a citizen, in the manner prescribed by the said act, upon his making proof that he has resided five years, at least, within the limits, and under the jurisdiction of the United States : And provided also, that no alien, who shall be a native, citizen, denizen or subject of any nation or state with whom the United States shall be at war, at the time of his applica- tion, shall be then admitted to become a citizen of the United States. Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the clerk, or other recording officer of the court before whom a declaration has been, or shall be made, by any alien, of his intention to become a citizen of the United States, to certify and transmit to the office of the Secretary of State of the United States, to be there filed and recorded, an abstract of such declaration, in which, when hereafter made, shall be a suitable description of the name, age, nation, residence and occupation, for the time being, of the alien ; such certifi- cate to be made in all cases, where the declaration has been or shall be made, before the passing of this act, within three months thereafter ; and in all other cases, within two months after the declaration shall be received by the court. And in all cases hereafter arising, there shall be paid to the clerk, or recording officer as aforesaid, to defray the expense of such abstract and certificate, a fee of two dollars ; and the clerk or officer to whom such fee shall be paid or tendered, who shall refuse or neglect to make and certify an abstract, as afore- said, shall forfeit and pay the sum of ten dollars. Sec. 3. And be it further enacted. That in all cases of naturalization hereto- fore permitted or which shall be permitted, under the laws of the United States, a certificate shall be made to, and filed in the office of the Secretary of State, containing a copy of the record respecting the alien, and the decree or order of admission by the court before whom the proceedings thereto have been, or shall be had : And it shall be the duty of the clerk or other recording officer of such court, to make and transmit such certificate, in all cases which have already occurred, within three months after the passing of this act ; and in all future cases, within two months from and after the naturalization of an alien shall be granted by any court competent thereto : — And in all future cases, there shall be paid to such clerk or recording officer the sum of two dollars, as a fee for such certificate, before the naturalization prayed for, shall be allowed. And the clerk or recording officer, whose duty it shall be, to make and trans- mit the certificate aforesaid, who shall be convicted of a wilful neglect therein, shall forfeit and pay the sum of ten dollars, for each and every offence. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATEIATION, ETC. 171 Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That all white persons, aliens, (accredited foreign ministers, consuls, or agents, their families and domestics, excepted) who, after the passing of this act, shall continue to reside, or who shall arrive, or come to reside in any port or place within the territory of the United States, shall be reported, if free, and of the age of twenty-one years, by themselves, or being under the age of twenty-one years, or holden in service, by their parent, guardian, master or mistress in whose care they shall be, to the clerk of the district court of the district, if living within ten miles of the port or place, in which their residence or arrival shall be, and otherwise, to the collector of such port or place, or some officer or other person there, or nearest thereto, who shall be authorized by the President of the United States, to register aliens: And report, as aforesaid, shall be made in all cases of residence, within six months from and after the passing of this act, and in all after cases, within forty-eight hours after the first arrival or coming into the territory of the United States, and shall ascertain the sex, place of birth, age, nation, place of allegiance or citizenship, condition or occupation, and place of actual or intended residence within the United States, of the alien or aliens reported, and by whom the report is made. And it shall be the duty of the clerk, or other officer, or person au- thorized, who shall receive such report, to record the same in a book to be kept for that purpose, and to grant to the person making the report, and to each individual concerned therein, whenever required, a certificate of such report and registry; and whenever such report and registry shall be made to, and by any officer or person authorized, as aforesaid, other than the clerk of the district court, it shall be the duty of such officer, or other person, to certify and trans- mit, within three months thereafter, a transcript of such registry, to the said clerk of the district court of the district in which the same shall happen ; who shall file the same in his office, and shall enter and transcribe the same in a book to be kept by him lor that purpose. And the clerk, officer or other person authorized to register aliens, shall be entitled to receive, for each report and registry of one individual or family of individuals, the sum of fifty cents, and for every certificate of a report and registry the sum of fifty cents, to be paid by the person making or requiring the same, respectively. And the clerk of the district court, to whom a return of the registry of any alien, shall have been made, as aforesaid, and the successor of such clerk, and of any other officer or person authorized to register aliens, who shall hold any former registry, shall and mar grant certificates thereof, to the same effect as the original' register might do. And the clerk of each district court shall, during cue year from the passing of this act, make monthly returns to the Department of State, of all aliens registered and returned, as aforesaid, in his office. Sec. 5. And 6e it further enacted, That every alien who shall continue to re- side, or who shall arrive, as aforesaid, of whom a report is Required as afore- said, who shall refuse or neglect to make such report, and to receive a certifi- cate thereof, shall forfeit and pay the sum of two dollars ; and any justice of the peace, or other civil magistrate, who has authority to require surety of the peace, shall and may, on complaint to him made thereof, cause such alien to be brought before him, there to give surety of the peace and good behaviour during his residence within the United States, or for such term as the justice or other magistrate shall deem reasonable, and until a report and registry of such alien shall be made, and a certificate thereof, received as aforesaid ; and in fail- ure of such surety, such alien shall and may be committed, to the common gaol, and shall be there held, until the order which the justice or magistrate shall and may reasonably make, in the premises, shall be performed. And every person, whether alien, or other, having the care of any alien or aliens, under the age of twenty-one years, or of any white alien holden in servicej, who shall refuse and neglect to make report thereof, as aforesaid, shall for- feit the sum of two dollars, for each and every such minor or servant, monthly, and every month, until a report and registry, and a certificate thereof, shall be had, as aforesaid. Sec. 6.- And fee it further enacted, That in respect to every alien, who shall come to reside within the United States after the passing of this act, the time of the registry of such alien shall be taken to be the time when the term of residence within the limits, and under the jurisdiction of the United States, shall have commenced, in case of an application by such alien, to be admitted a citizen of the United States; and a certificate of such registry shall be required, in proof of the term of residence, by the court to whom such applica- tion shall and may be made. 172 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. Sec. 7. And be it furthev enacted, That all and singular the penalties estab- lished by this act, shall and may be recovered in the name, and to the use of any person, who will inform and sue for the same, before any judge, justice, or court, having jurisdiction in such case, and to the amount of such penalty, respectively. Approved, June 18, 1798. (U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. I, pp. 566-569.) CHAP. XXVIII. — An Act To establish an uniform rule of Naturalization, and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 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, superior, 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, bona fide, his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce for ever 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 citizen or subject. Secondly, That he shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, de- clare on oath or affirmation, before some one of the courts aforesaid, that he will support the constitution 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 he was before a citizen or subject ; which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk 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 within the state or territory where such court is at the time held, one year at least ; and it shall further appear to their satisfaction, that during that time, he has behaved as a man of a good- moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same: Provided, that the oath of the applicant shall, in no case, be allowed to prove his residence. Fourthly, That in case the alien, applying to be 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 requi- sites, make an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility in the court to which his application shall be made, which renunciation shall be recorded in the said court : Provided, that no alien who shall be a native citizen, denizen or subject of any country, state or sovereign, 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: Provided also, that any alien who was residing within the limits, and under the jurisdiction of the United States, before the twenty-ninth day of January, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, may be admitted to become a citizen, on due proof made to some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided two years, at least, within and under the juris- diction of the United States, and one year, at least, immediately preceding his application, within the state or territory where such court is at the time held; and on his declaring on oath or affirmatiou that he will support the constitu- tion of the United States, and that he doth absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject: and moreover, on its appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that during the said term of two years, he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the con- stitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happi- ness of the same ; and where the alien, applying for admission 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, on his moreover making in the CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 173 court an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, before he shall be entitled to such admission : all of which proceedings, required in this pro- viso to be performed in the court, shall be recorded by the clerk thereof : and provided also, that any alien who was residing within the limits, and under the jurisdiction of the United States at any time between the said twenty-ninth day of January, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, and the eighteenth day of June, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-eight, may, within two years after the passing of this act, be admitted to become a citizen, without a compliance with the first condition above specified. Sec. 2. Provided also, and be it further enacted, That in addition to the directions aforesaid, all free white persons, being aliens, who may arrive in the United States after the passing of this act, shall, in order to become citizens of the United States, make registry, and obtain certificates, in the following manner, to wit : every person desirous of being naturalized shall, if of the age of twenty-one years, make report of himself ; or if under the age of twenty-one years, or held in service, shall be reported by his parent, guardian, master, or mistress, to the clerk of the district court of the district where such alien or aliens shall arrive, or to some other court of record of the United States, or of either of the territorial districts of the same, or of a particular state ; and such report shall ascertain the name, birthplace, age, nation and allegiance of each alien, together with the country whence he or she migrated, and the place of his or her intended settlement : and it shall be the duty of such clerk, on receiving such report, to record the same in his office, and to grant to the person making such report, and to each individual concerned therein, whenever he shall be required, a certificate under his hand and seal of office of such report and registry ; and for receiving and registering each report of an individual or family, he shall receive fifty cents ; and for each certificate granted pursuant to this act, to an individual or family, fifty cents ; and such certificate shall be exhibited to the court by every alien who may arrive in the United States, after the passing of this act, on his application to be naturalized, as evidence of the time of his arrival within 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 further 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 privileges, as if he had been naturalized in a district or circuit court of the United States. Sec. 4. And lie it further enacted, That the children of persons duly natural- ized 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 natural- ized 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 right of citizenship shall not 'descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States : Provided also, 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 legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed. Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That all acts heretofore passed respecting naturalization, be, and the same are hereby repealed. Approved, April 14, 1802. (U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 2, pp. 153-155.) CHAP. XLVII. — An Act In addition to an act intituled "An Act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject." Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who was residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United 174 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. States, at any time between the eighteenth day of June, ope thousand seven hun- dred and ninety-eight, and the fourteenth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and two, and who has continued to reside within the same, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, without a compliance with the first condition specified in the first section of the act, intituled "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization ; and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject." Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That when any alien who shall have com- plied with the first condition specified in the first section of the said original act, and who shall have pursued 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 privileges as such, upon taking the oaths prescribed by law. Approved, March, 26, 1804. (U. S. Statutes at Large, vol. 2, pp. 292, 293). CHAP. XLIL — An Act For the regulation of seamen on board the public and private vessels of the United States. * * •*#*■}- $ Sec 12. And be 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 contin- ued term of five years next preceding his admission as aforesaid have resided within the United States, without being at any time during the said five years out of the territory of the United States. Sec. 13. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall falsely make, forge, or counterfeit, or cause or procure to be falsely made, forged or counter- feited, any certificate or evidence of citizenship referred to in this act; or shall pass, utter, or use as true, any false, forged or counterfeited certificate of citizenship, or shall make sale or dispose of any certificate of citizenship to any person other than the person for whom it was originally issued, and to whom it may of right belong, every such person shall be deemed and adjudged guilty of felony ; and on being thereof convicted by due course of law, shall be sentenced to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for a period not less than three, or more than five years, or be fined in a sum not less than five hundred dollars, nor more than one thousand dollars, at the discretion of the court taking cognizance thereof. Approved, March 3, 1813. (U. S. Statutes at Large, vol. 2, p. 811). CHAP. XXXVI. — An Act Supplementary to the acts heretofore passed on the subject of an uniform rule of naturalization. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That persons resident within the United . States, or the territories thereof, on the eighteenth day of June, in the year one thousand eight hundred and twelve, who had before that day made a declara- tion according to law, of their intentions to become citizens of the United States, or who by the existing laws of the United States, .were on that day entitled to become citizens, without making such declaration, may be admitted to become citizens thereof, notwithstanding they shall be alien enemies at the times and in the manner prescribed by the laws heretofore passed on that subject: Pro- vided, That nothing herein contained shall be taken or construed to interfere with or prevent the apprehension and removal, agreeably to law, of any alien enemy at any time previous to the actual naturalization of such alien. Approved, July 30, 1813. (U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. Ill, p. 53.) CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 175 CHAP. XXXII. — An Act Relative to evidence in cases of naturalization. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That the certificate of report and registry, required as evidence of the time of arrival in the United States, according to the second section of the act of the fourteenth of April, one thousand eight hun- dred and two, entitled "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the act heretofore passed on this subject; " and also a certificate from the proper clerk or prothonotary, of the declaration of intention, made before a court of record, and required as the first condition, .according to the first section of said act, shall be exhibited by every alien on his application to be admitted a citizen of the United States, in pursuance of said act, who shall have arrived within the limits, and under the jurisdiction of the United States since the eighteenth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and twelve, and shall each be recited at full length, in the record of the court, admitting such alien ; otherwise he shall not be deemed to have complied with the conditions requisite for becoming a citizen of the United States, and any pretended admission of an alien, who shall have arrived within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States, since the said eighteenth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and twelve, to be a citizen after the promulgation of this act, without such recital of each certificate at full length, shall be of no validity or effect under the act aforesaid. Sec. 2,. Provided, and be it enacted, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to exclude from admission to citizenship, any free white person who was residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States at any time between the eighteenth day of June, one thousand seven hundred and ninety- eight, and the fourteenth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and two, and who, having continued to reside therein without having made any declaration of intention before a court of record as aforesaid, may be entitled to become a citizen of the United States according to the act of the twenty-sixth of March, one thou- sand eight hundred and four, entitled "An act in addition to an act, entitled 'An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject.' " Whenever any person without a certificate of such declaration of intention, as aforesaid, shall make application to be admitted a citizen of the United States, it shall be proved to the satisfaction of the court, that the applicant was residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States, before the fourteenth day of April, one thousand eight hun- dred and two, and has continued to reside within the same, or he shall not be so admitted. And the residence of the applicant within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for at least five years immediately preced- ing the time of such application shall be proved by the oath or affirmation of citizens of the United States ; which citizens shall be named in the record as witnesses. And such continued residence within the limits and under the juris- diction of the United States, when satisfactorily proved, and the place or places where the applicant has resided for at least five years, as aforesaid, shall be stated and set forth, together with the names of such citizens in the record of the court admitting the applicant : otherwise the same shall not entitle him to be considered and deemed a citizen of the United States. Approved, March 22, 1816. (U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. Ill, pp. 258, 259.) CHAP. CLXXXVI. — 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 by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, m 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 preceding 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 five years within the United States, including the three years of his minority, be admitted a citizen of the United States, without having made the declaration required in the first condition of the first section of the act to which this is in addition, three 176 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. years previous to his admission : Provided, Such alien shall make the declara- tion required therein at the time of his or her admission ; and shall further de- clare, on oath, and prove to the satisfaction of the court, that, for three years next preceding, it has been the bona fide intention of such alien to become a citizen of the United States ; and shall, in all other respects, comply with the laws in regard to naturalization. Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That no certificates of citizenship or naturalization, heretofore obtained from any court of record within the United States, shall be deemed invalid, in consequence of an omission to comply with the requisition of the first section of the act, entitled "An act relative to evi- dence in cases of naturalization," passed the twenty-second day of March, one thousand eight hundred and sixteen. Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the declaration required by the first condition specified in the first section of the act, to which this is in addition, shall, if the same has been bona fide made before the clerks of either of the courts in the said condition named, be as valid as if it had been made before the said courts, respectively. Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That a declaration by any alien, being a free white person, of his intended application to be admitted a citizen of the United States, made in the manner and form prescribed in the first condition specified in the first section of the act to which this is in addition, two years before his admission, shall be a sufficient compliance with said condition ; any- thing in the said act, or in any subsequent act, to the contrary notwithstanding. Approved, May 26, 1824. (U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. IV, p. 69.) CHAP. CXVI. — An Act To amend the acts concerning naturalization. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That the second section of the act, entitled "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject," which was passed on the fourteenth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and two, and the first section of the act, entitled " An act relative to evidence In cases of naturalization," passed on the twenty-second day of March, one thousand eight hundred and sixteen, be, and the same are hereby, repealed. Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That any alien, being a free white person, who was residing within the limits, and under the jurisdiction of the United States, between the fourteenth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and two, and the eighteenth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and twelve, and who has continued to reside within the same, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, without having made any previous declaration of his intention to become a citizen : Provided, That whenever any person, without a certificate of such declaration of intention, shall make application to be admitted a citizen of the United States, it shall be proved to the satisfaction of the court, that the applicant was residing within the limits, and under the jurisdiction of the United States, before the eighteenth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and twelve, and has continued to reside within the same, or he shall not be so admitted : and the residence of the applicant within the limits, and under the jurisdiction of the United States, for at least five years Immediately preceding the time of such application, shall be proved by the oath or affirmation of citizens of the United States : which citizens shall be named in the record as witnesses ; and such continued residence within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States, when satisfactorily proved, and the place or places where the applicant has resided for at least five years, as aforesaid, shall be stated and set forth, together with the names of such citizens, in the record of the court admitting the applicant: otherwise the same shall not entitle him to be considered and deemed a citizen of the United States. Approved, May 24, 1828. (U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. IV, pp. 310, 311.) CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 177 CHAP. LXXII. — An Act To amend the act entitled "An act for the regulation of Seamen on board the public and private vessels of the United States," passed the third of March, eighteen hundred and thirteen. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the last clause of the twelfth section of the act hereby amended, consisting of the following words, to wit, " without being at any time during the said five years out of the territory of the United States," be, and the same is hereby, repealed. Approved, June 26, 1848. (U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. IX, p. 240.) CHAP. LXXI. — An Act To secure the right of Citizenship to children of Citizens of the United States born out of the Limits thereof. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 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 citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States. Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, 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. Approved, February 10, 1855. (U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. X, p. 604.) CHAP. CC. — An Act To define the ray and Emoluments of certain Officers of the Army, and for other Purposes. ******* Sec. 21. And be it further enacted, That any alien, of the age of twenty-one years and upwards, who has enlisted or shall enlist in the armies of the United States, either the regular or the volunteer forces, and has been or shall be here- after honorably discharged, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, upon his petition, without any previous declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and that he shall not be required to prove more than one year's residence within the United States previous to his applica- tion to become such citizen ; and that the court admitting such alien shall, in addition to such proof of residence and good moral character as is now provided by law, be satisfied by competent proof of such person having been honorably discharged from the service of the United States as aforesaid. ******* Approved, July 17, 1862. (U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. XII, p. 597.) CHAP. XXXI. — An Act To protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their vindication. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States ; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servi- tude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punish- ment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding. Passed April 9, 1866. (U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV, p. 27.) H. Doc. 326, 59-2 12 178 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. CHAP. CCXLIX. — An Act Concerning the Eights of American Citizens in foreign States. Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all peo- ple, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pur- suit of happiness ; and whereas in the recognition of this principle this govern- ment has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citi- zens, with their descendents, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed : Therefore, Be it enacted by the Senate and, House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government. Sec. 2. 'And be, it further enacted, 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. Sec 3. And be it further enacted, That whenever it shall be made known to the President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand of that government the reasons for such imprisonment, and if it appears to be wrongful and in violation of the rights of American citizenship, the President shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen, and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, it shall be the duty of the President to use such means, not amounting to acts of war, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate such release, and all the facts and proceedings relative thereto shall as soon as practicable be communicated by the President to Congress. Approved, July 27, 1868. (U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. XV, pp. 223, 224.) CHAP. CCLIV. — An Act To amend the Naturalization Laws and to punish Crimes against the same, and for other Purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in all cases where any oath, affirmation, or affidavit shall be made or taken under or by virtue of any act or law relating to the naturalization of aliens, or in any proceedings under such acts or laws, and any person or persons taking or making such oath, affirmation, or affidavit, shall knowingly swear or affirm falsely, the same shall be deemed and taken to be perjury, and the person or persons guilty thereof shall upon conviction thereof be sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and not less than one year, and to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars. Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person applying to be admitted a citizen, or appearing as a witness for any such person, shall knowingly personate any other person than himself, or falsely appear in the name of a deceased person, or in an assumed or fictitious name, or if any person shall falsely make, forge, or counterfeit any oath, affirmation, notice, affidavit, certificate, order, record, signature, or other instrument, paper, or proceeding required or author- ized by any law or act relating to or providing for the naturalization of aliens ; or shall utter, sell, dispose of, or use as true or genuine, or for any unlawful purpose, any false, forged, ante-dated, or counterfeit oath, affirmation, notice, certificate, order, record, signature, instrument, paper, or proceeding as afore- said ; or sell or dispose of to any person other than the person for whom it was originally issued, any certificate of citizenship, or certificate showing any person to be admitted a citizen ; or if any person shall in any manner use for the pur- pose of registering as a voter, or as evidence of a right to vote, or otherwise, unlawfully, any order, certificate of citizenship, or certificate, judgment, or exemplification, showing such person to be admitted to be a citizen, whether heretofore or hereafter issued or made, knowing that such order or certificate, CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 179 judgment, or exemplification has been unlawfully issued or made ; or if any person shall unlawfully use, or attempt to use, any such order or certificate, issued to or in the name of any other person, or in a fictitious name, or the name of a deceased person ; or use, or attempt to use, or aid, or assist, or participate in the use of any certificate of citizenship, knowing the same to be forged, or counterfeit, or ante-dated, or knowing the same to have been procured by fraud, or otherwise unlawfully obtained ; or if any person, and without lawful excuse, shall knowingly have or be possessed of any false, forged, ante-dated, or. coun- terfeit certificate of citizenship, purporting to have been issued under the pro- visions of any law of the United States relating to naturalization, knowing such certificate to be false, forged, ante-dated, or counterfeit, with intent unlawfully to use the same ; or if any person shall obtain, accept, or receive any certificate of citizenship known to such person to have been procured by fraud or by the use of any false name, or by means of any false statement made with intent to procure, or to aid in procuring, the issue of such certificate, or known to such person to be fraudulently altered or ante-dated ; or if any person who has been or may be admitted to be a citizen shall, on oath or affirmation, or by affidavit, knowingly deny that he has been so admitted, with intent to evade or avoid any duty or liability imposed or required by law, every person so offending shall be deemed and adjudged guilty of felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be sen- tenced to be imprisoned and kept at hard labor for a period not less than one year nor more than five years, or be fined in a sum not less than three hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars, or both such punishments may be imposed, in the discretion of the court. And every person who shall knowingly and intentionally aid or abet any person in the commission of any such felony, or attempt to do any act hereby made felony, or counsel, advise, or procure, or attempt to procure, ,the commission thereof, shall be liable to indictment and punishment in the same manner and to the same extent as the principal party guilty of such felony, and such person may be tried and convicted thereof with- out the previous conviction of such principal. Sec. 3. And 6e it further enacted, That any person who shall knowingly use any certificate of naturalization heretofore granted by any court, or which shall hereafter be granted, which has been, or shall be, procured through fraud or by false evidence, or has been or shall be issued by the clerk, or any other officer of the court without any appearance and hearing of the applicant in court and without lawful authority ; and any person who shall falsely represent himself to be a citizen of the United States, without having been duly admitted to citizenship, for any fraudulent purpose whatever, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, in due course of law, shall be sentenced to pay a fine of not exceeding one thousand dollars, or be imprisoned not exceeding two years, either or both, in the discretion of the court taking cognizance of the same. Sec. 4. And J)e it further enacted, That the provisions of this act shall apply to all proceedings had or taken, or attempted to be had or taken, before any court in which any proceeding for naturalization shall be commenced, had, or taken, or attempted to be commenced ; and the courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of all offenses under the provisions of this act, in or before whatsoever court or tribunal the same shall have been committed. Sec. 5. And he it further enacted. That in any city having upwards of twenty thousands inhabitants, it shall be the duty of the judge of the circuit court of the United States for the circuit wherein said city shall be, upon the application of two citizens, to appoint in writing for each election district or voting precinct in said city, and to change or renew said appointment as occasion may require, . from time to time, two citizens resident of the district or precinct, one from each political party, who, when so designated, shall be, and are hereby, authorized to attend at all times and places fixed for the registration of voters, who, being registered, would be entitled to vote for representative in Congress, and at all times and places for holding elections of representatives in Congress, and for counting the votes cast at said elections, and to challenge any name proposed to be registered, and any vote offered, and to be present and witness throughout the counting of all votes, and to remain where the ballot-boxes are kept at all times after the polls are open until the votes are finally counted ; and said persons and either of them shall have the right to affix their signature or his signature to said register for the purposes of identification, and to attach thereto, or to the cortificate of the number of votes cast, and [any] statement touching the truth or fairness thereof which they or he may ask to attach; and any one 180 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. who shall prevent any person so designated from doing any of the acts author- ized as aforesaid, or who shall hinder or molest any such person in doing any of the said acts, or shall aid or abet in preventing, hindering, or molesting any such person in respect of any such acts, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction shall be punished by imprisonment not less than one year. Sec. 6. And lie it further enacted. That in any city having upwards of twenty thousand inhabitants, it shall be lawful for the marshal of the United States for the district wherein said city shall be. to appoint as many special deputies as may be necessary to preserve order at any election at which representatives in Congress are to be chosen ; and said deputies are hereby authorized to preserve order at such elections, and to arrest for any offence or breech of the peace com- mitted in their view. Sec. 7. And lie it further enacted, That the naturalization laws are hereby extended to aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent. Approved, July 14, 1870. (U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. XVI, pp. 254-256.) CHAP. CCCXXII. — An Act To authorize the Appointment of Shipping-commissioners by the several Circuit Courts or the United States, to superintend the Shipping and Dis- charge of Seamen engaged in Merchant Ships belonging to the United States, and for the further Protection of Seamen. * * Jr * * * * Sec. 29. That every seaman, being a foreigner, who declares his intention of becoming a citizen of the United States in any competent court, and shall have served three years on board of a merchant ship or ships of the United States subsequent to the date of such declaration, may, on his application to any com- petent court, and the production of his certificate of discharge and good conduct during that time, together with the certificate of his declaration of intention to become a citizen, be admitted a citizen of the United States ; and every seaman, being a foreigner, shall, after his declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United States, and shall have served said three years, be deemed a citi- zen of the United States for the purpose of manning and serving on board any merchant ship of the United States, any thing to the contrary in any previous act of Congress notwithstanding ; but such seamen shall, for all pur- poses of protection as an American citizen, be deemed such, after the filing of his declaration of intention to become such citizen. * * -i: * * * * Approved June 7, 1872. (U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. XVII, p. 268.) CHAP. 5. — An Act To amend the Revised Statutes relating to naturalization. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United States, required by section two thousand one hundred and sixty-five of the Revised Statutes of the United States, may be made by an alien before the clerk of any of the courts named in said section two thou- sand one hundred and sixty-five; and all such declarations heretofore made before any such clerk are hereby declared as legal and valid as if made before one of the courts named in said section. Approved, February 1, 1876. (U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. XIX, p. 2.) REVISED STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES. (1878.) Title XXX.— Naturalization. Sec. 2165. An alien may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States in the following manner, and not otherwise: First. He shall declare on oath, before a circuit or district court of the United States, or a district or supreme court of the Territories, or a court of record of any of the States having common-law jurisdiction, and a seal and CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 181 clerk, two years, at least, prior to his admission, that it is bona fide his inten- tion to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, and, particularly, by name, to the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of which the alien may be at the time a citizen or subject. Second. He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare on oath, before some one of the courts above specified, that he will support the Constitution of the United States, and that he absolutely and entirely renounces and abjures all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty ; and, particularly, by name, to the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of which he was before a citizen or subject; which proceeding shall be recorded by the clerk of the court. Third. It shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court admitting such alien that he has resided within the United States five years at least, and within the State or Territory where such court is at the time held, one year at least ; and that during that time he has behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same ; but the oath of the applicant shall in no case be allowed to prove his residence. Fourth. In case the alien applying to be admitted to citizenship has 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 is made, and his renunciation shall be recorded in the court. Fifth. Any alien who has resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States before the twenty-ninth day of January, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, may be admitted to become a citizen, on due proof made to some one of the courts above specified, that he has resided two years, at least, within the jurisdiction of the United States, and one year, at least, immediately preceding his application,' within the State or Territory where such court is at the time held ; and on his declaring on oath that he will support the Constitution of the United States, and that he absolutely and entirely renounces and abjures all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, poten- tate, state, or sovereignty, and, particularly, by name, to the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof he was before a citizen or subject ; and, also, on its appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that during such term of two years he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the Con- stitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happi- ness of the same ; and where the alien applying for admission to citizenship, has borne any hereditary title, or been of any one of the orders of nobility in the kingdom or state from which he came, on his, moreover, making in the court an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility. All of the proceedings, required in this condition to be performed in the court, shall be recorded by the clerk thereof. Sixth. Any alien who has resided within the limits and under the jurisdic- tion of the United States, between the eighteenth day of June, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-eight, and the eighteenth day of June, one thousand eight' hundred and twelve, and who has continued to reside within the same, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States without having made any previous declaration of his intention to become such ; but whenever any person, without a certificate of such declaration of intention, makes application to be admitted a citizen, it must be proved to the satisfaction of the court, that the applicant was residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States before the eighteenth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and twelve, and has continued to reside within the same ; and the residence of the applicant within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States, for" at least five years immediately preceding the time of such application, must be proved by the oaths of citizens of the United States, which citizens shall be named in the record as witnesses ; and such continued residence within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States, when satisfactorily proved, and the place where the applicant has resided for at least five years, shall be stated and set forth, together with the names of such citizens, in thfe record of the court admitting the applicant ; otherwise the same shall not entitle him to be considered and deemed a citizen of the United States. [Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United States, required by section two thousand one hundred 182 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. and sixty-five of the Revised Statutes of the United States, may be made by an alien before the clerk of any of the courts' named in said section two thousand one hundred and sixty-five; and all such declarations heretofore made before any such clerk are hereby declared as legal and valid as if made before one of the courts named in said section.] Sec. 2166. Any alien, of the age of twenty-one years and upward, who has enlisted, or may enlist, in the armies of the United States, either the regular or the volunteer forces, and has been, or may be hereafter, honorably discharged, shall be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, upon his petition, without any previous declaration of his intention to become such ; and he shall not be required to prove more than one year's residence within the United States previous to his application to become such citizen ; and the court admit- ting such alien shall, in addition to such proof of residence and good moral character, as now provided by law, be satisfied by competent proof of such person's having been honorably discharged from the service of the United States. Sec. 2167. Any alien, being under the age of twenty-one years, who has re- sided in the United States three years next preceding his arriving at that age, and who has 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 has resided five years within the United States, including the three years of his minority, be admitted a citizen of the United States, without having made the declaration required in the first con- dition of section twenty-one hundred and sixty-five ; but such alien shall make the declaration required therein at the time of his admission ; and shall fur- ther declare, on oath, and prove to the satisfaction of the court, tlidt, for two years next preceding, it has been his bona-fide intention to become a citizen of the United States ; and he shall in all other respects comply with the laws in regard to naturalization. - Sec. 2168. When any alien who has complied with the first condition speci- fied in section twenty-one hundred and sixty-five, dies 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 privileges as such, upon taking the oaths proscribed " by law. Sec. 2169. The provisions of this Title shall apply to aliens [being free white persons, and to aliens] of African nativity and to persons of African descent. Sec 2170. No alien shall be admitted to become a citizen who has not for the continued term of five years next preceding his admission resided within the United States. Sec. 2171. No alien who is a native citizen or subject, or a denizen of any country, state, or sovereignty with which the United States are at war, at the time of his application, shall be then admitted to become a citizen of the United States ; but persons resident within the United States, or the Territories thereof, on the eighteenth day of June, in the year one thousand eight hundred and twelve, who had before that day made a declaration, according to law, of their intention to become citizens of the United States, or who were on that day entitled to become citizens without making such declaration, may be admitted to become citizens thereof, notwithstanding they were alien enemies at the - time and in the rammer prescribed by the laws heretofore passed on that subject; nor shall anything herein contained be taken or construed to interfere with or prevent the apprehension and removai, agreeably to law, of any alien enemy at any time previous to the actual naturalization of such alien. Sec. 2172. The children of persons who have been duly naturalized under any law 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 States, under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty- one years at the time of the naturalization of their parents, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens thereof; 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 thereof; but no person heretofore proscribed by any State, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the Revolutionary War, shall be admitted to become a citizen without the consent of the legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed. i Error in the Roll ; should be prescribed. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 183 Sec. 2173. The police court of the District of Columbia shall have no power to naturalize foreigners. Sec. 2174. Every seaman, being a foreigner, who declares his intention of becoming a citizen of the United States in any competent court, and shall have served three years on board of a merchant-vessel of the United States subse- quent to the date of such declaration, may, on his application to any competent court, and the production of his certificate of discharge and good conduct dur- ing that time, together with the certificate of his declaration of intention to become a citizen, be admitted a citizen of the United States ; and every seaman, being a foreigner, shall, after his declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United States, and after he shall have served such three years, be deemed a citizen of the United States for the purpose of manning and serving on board any merchant-vessel of the United States, anything to the contrary in any act of Congress notwithstanding; but such seaman shall, for all purposes of protection as an American citizen, be deemed such, after the filing of his declaration of intention to become such citizen. CHAP. 126. — An Act To execute certain treaty stipulations relating to Chinese. Sec. 14. That hereafter no State court or court of the United States shall admit Chinese to citizenship ; and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed. ******* Approved, May 6, 1882. (U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. XXII, p. 61.) CHAr. 165. — An Act Making appropriations for the Naval Service for the fiscal year ending .Tune thirtieth, eighteen hundred and ninety-five, and for other purposes. ******* * * * Any alien of the age of twenty-one years and upward who has enlisted or may enlist in the United States Navy or Marine Corps, and has served or may hereafter serve five consecutive years in the United States Navy or one enlistment in the United States Marine Corps, and has been or may hereafter be honorably discharged, shall be admitted to become a citizen of the United States upon his petition, without any previous declaration of his in- tention to become such ; and the court admitting such alien shall, in addition to proof of good moral character, be satisfied by competent proof of such per- son's service in and honorable discharge from the United States Navy, or Marine Corps. * * * Approved, July 26, 1894. (Vol. 28, U. S. Statutes at Large, p. 124.) CHAP. 1012. — An Act To regulate the immigration of aliens into the United States. ******* Sec. 39. That no person who disbelieves in or who is opposed to all organ- ized government, or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization entertaining and teaching such disbelief in or opposition to all organized government, or who advocates or teaches the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers, either of specific individuals or of officers generally, of the Government of the United States or of any other organized government, because of his or their official character, or who has violated any of the provisions of this Act, shall be naturalized or be made a citizen of the United States. All courts and tribunals and all judges and officers thereof having jurisdiction of naturalization proceedings or duties to perform in regard thereto shall, on the final application for natural' ization, make careful inquiry into such matters, and before issuing the final 184 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, M.C. order or certificate of naturalization cause to be entered of record the affidavit of the applicant and of his witnesses so far as applicable, reciting and affirm- ing the truth of every material fact requisite for naturalization. All final orders and certificates of naturalization hereafter made shall show on their face specifically that said affidavits were duly made and recorded, and all orders and certificates that fail to show such facts shall be null and void. That any person who purposely procures naturalization in violation of the provisions of this section shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or shall be imprisoned not less than one nor more than ten years, or both, and the court in which such conviction is had shall thereupon adjudge and de- clare the order or decree and all certificates admitting such person to citizen- ship null and void. Jurisdiction is hereby conferred on the courts having jurisdiction of the trial of such offense to make such adjudication. That any person who knowingly aids, advises, or encourages any such per- son to apply for or to secure naturalization or to file the preliminary papers declaring an intent to become a citizen of the United States, or who in un- naturalization proceeding knowingly procures or gives false testimony as to any material fact, or who knowingly makes an affidavit false as to any ma- terial fact required to be proved in such proceeding, shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or imprisoned not less than one nor more than ten years, or both. The foregoing provisions concerning naturalization shall not be enforced until ninety days after the approval hereof. Approved, March 3, 1903. (32 U. S. Statutes at Large, p. 3222.) CHAP. 3592. — An Act To establish a Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization, and to provide for a uniform rule for the naturalization of aliens throughout the United States. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the designation of the Bureau of Im- migration in the Department of Commerce and Labor is hereby changed to the " Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization," which said Bureau, under the direction and control of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, in addition to the duties now provided by law, shall have charge of all matters concerning the naturalization of aliens. That it shall be the duty of the said Bureau to provide, for use at the various immigration stations throughout the United States, books of record, wherein the commissioners of immigration shall cause a registry to be made in the case of each alien arriving in the United States from and after the passage of this Act of the name, age, occupation, personal description (including height, complexion, color of hair and eyes), the place of birth, the last residence, the intended place of residence in the United States, and the date of arrival of said alien, and, if entered through a port, the name of the vessel in which he comes. And it shall be the duty of said commissioners of immigration to cause to be granted to such alien a certificate of .such registry, with the particulars thereof. Sec. 2. That the Secretary of Commerce and Labor shall provide the said Bureau with such additional furnished offices within the city of Washington, such books of record and facilities, and such additional assistants, clerks, ste- nographers, typewriters, and other employees as may be necessary for the proper discharge of the duties imposed by this Act upon such Bureau, fixing the compensation of such additional employees until July first, nineteen hundred and seven, within the appropriations made for that purpose. Sec. 3. That exclusive jurisdiction to naturalize aliens as citizens of the United States is hereby conferred upon the following specified courts : United States circuit and district courts now existing, or which may here- after be established by Congress in any State, United States district courts for the Territories of Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Hawaii, and Alaska, the supreme court of the District of Columbia, and the United States' courts for the Indian Territory ; also all courts of record in any State or Territory now existing, or which may hereafter be created, having a seal, a clerk, and jurisdic- tion in actions at law or equity, or law and equity, in which the amount in con- troversy is unlimited. CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 185 That the naturalization jurisdiction of all courts herein specified, State, Terri- torial, and Federal, shall extend only to aliens resident within the respective judicial districts of such courts. The courts herein specified shall, upon the requisition of the clerks of such courts, be furnished from time to time by the Bureau of Immigration and Nat- uralization with such blank forms as may be required in the naturalization of aliens, and all certificates of naturalization shall be consecutively numbered and printed on safety paper furnished by said Bureau. Sec. 4. That an alien may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States in the following manner and not otherwise : First. He shall declare on oath before the clerk of any court authorized by this Act to naturalize aliens, or his authorized deputy, in the district in which such alien resides, two years at least prior to his admission, and after he has reached the age of eighteen years, that it is bona 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, and particularly, by name, to the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of which the alien may be at the time a citizen or subject. And such declaration shall set forth the name, age, occupation, personal description, place of birth, last foreign residence and allegiance, the date of arrival, the name of the vessel, if any, in which he came to the United States, and the present place of residence in the United States of said alien : Provided, however, That no alien who, in conformity with the ' law in force at the date of his declaration, has declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States shall be required to renew such declaration. Second. Not less than two years nor more than seven years after he has made such declaration of intention he shall make and file, in duplicate, a petition in writing, signed by the applicant in his own handwriting and duly verified, in which petition such applicant shall state his full name, his place of residence (by street and number, if possible), his occupation, and, if possible, the date and place of his birth ; the place from which he emigrated, and the date and place of his arrival in the United States, and, if he entered through a port, the name of the vessel on which he arrived ; the time when and the place and name of the court where he declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States ; if he is married he shall state the name of his wife and, if possible, the country of her nativity and her place of residence at the time of filing his petition; and if he has children, the name, date, and place of birth and place of residence of each child living at the time of the filing of his petition : Pro- vided, That if he has filed his declaration before the passage of this Act he shall not be required to sign the petition in his own handwriting. The petition shall set forth that he is not a disbeliever in or opposed to organ- ized government, or a member of or affiliated with any organization or body of persons teaching disbelief in or opposed to organized government, a polygamist or believer in the practice of polygamy, and that it is his intention to become a citizen of the United States and to renounce absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, and particu- larly by name to the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of which he at the time of filing of his petition may be a citizen or subject, and that it is his inten- tion to reside permanently within the United States, and whether or not he has been denied admission as a citizen of the United States, and, if denied, the ground or grounds of such denial, the court or courts in which such decision was rendered, and that the cause for such denial has since been cured or re- moved, and every fact material to his naturalization and required to be proved upon the final hearing of his application. The petition shall also be verified by the affidavits of at least two credible wit- nesses, who are citizens of the United States, and who shall state in their affi- davits that they have personally known the applicant to be a resident of the United States for a period of at least five years continuously, and of the State, Territory, or district in which the application is made for a period of at least one vear immediately preceding the date of the filing of his petition, and that they* each have personal knowledge that the petitioner is a person of good moral character, and that he is in every way qualified, in their opinion, to be admitted as a citizen of the United States. At the time of filing his petition there shall be filed with the clerk of the court a certificate from the Department of Commerce and Labor, if the peti- tioner arrives in the United States after the passage of this Act, stating the date, place, and manner of his arrival in the United States, and the declaration 186 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. of intention of such petitioner, which certificate and declaration shall be attached to and made a part of said petition. Third. He shall, before he is admitted to citizenship, declare on oath in open court that he will support the Constitution of the United States, and that he absolutely and entirely renounces and abjures all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, and particularly by name to the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of which he was before a citizen or sub- ject; that he will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and bear true faith and allegi- ance to the same. Fourth. It shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court admitting any alien to citizenship that immediately preceding the date of his application he has resided continuously within the United States five years at least, and within the State or Territory where such court is at the time held one year at least, and" that during that time he has behaved as a man of good moral charac- ter, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiuess of the same. In addition to the oath of the applicant, the testimony of at least two witnesses, citizens of the United States, as to the facts of residence, moral character, and attachment to the principles of the Constitution shall be required, and the name, place of residence, and occupation of each witness shall be set forth in the record. Fifth. In case the alien applying to be admitted to citizenship has borne any hereditary title, or has 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 is made, and his renunciation shall be recorded in the court. Sixth. When any alien who has declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States dies before he is actually naturalized the widow and minor children of such alien may, by complying with the other provisions of this Act, be naturalized without making any declaration of intention. Sec. 5. That the clerk of the court shall, immediately after filing the petition, give notice thereof by posting in a public and conspicuous place in his office, or in the building in which his office is situated, under an appropriate heading, the name, nativity, and residence of the alien, the date and place of his arrival in the United States, and the date, as nearly as may be, for the final hearing of his petition, and the names of the witnesses whom the applicant expects to sum- mon in his behalf ; and the clerk shall, if the applicant requests it, issue a subpoena for the witnesses so named by the said applicant to appear upon the day set for the final hearing, but in case such witnesses can not be produced upon the final hearing other witnesses may be summoned. Sec. 6. That petitions for naturalization may be made and filed during term time or vacation of the court and shall be docketed the same day as filed, but final action thereon shall be had only on stated days, to be fixed by rule of the court, and in no case shall final action be had upon a petition until at least ninety days have elapsed after filing and posting the notice of such petition: Provided, That no person shall be naturalized nor shall any certificate of natu- ralization be issued by any court within thirty days preceding the holding of any general election within its territorial jurisdiction. It shall be lawful, at the time and as a part of the naturalization of any alien, for the court, in its dis- cretion, upon the petition of such alien, to make a decree changing the name of said alien, and his certificate of naturalization shall be issued to him in accord- ance therewith. Sec. 7. That no person who disbelieves in or who is opposed to organized gov- ernment, or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization entertaining and teaching such disbelief in or opposition to organized government, or who advocates or teaches the duty, necessity, or property of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers, either of specific individuals or of officers generally, of the Government of the United States, or of any other organized government, because of his or their official character, or who is a polygamist, shall be naturalized or be made a citizen of the United States. Sec. 8. That no alien shall hereafter be naturalized or admitted as a citizen of the United States who can not speak the English language : Provided, That this requirement shall not apply to aliens who are physically unable to comply therewith, if they are otherwise qualified to become citizens of the United States: And provided further, That the requirements of this section shall not apply to any alien who has prior to the passage of this Act declared his inten- tion to become a citizen of the United States in conformity with the law in CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 187 force at the date of making such declaration : Provided further, That the re- quirements of section eight shall not apply to aliens who shall hereafter declare their intention to become citizens and who shall make homestead entries upon the public lands of the United States and comply in all respects with the laws providing for homestead entries on such lands. Sec. 9. That every final hearing upon such petition shall be had in open court before a judge or judges thereof, and every final order which may be made upon such petition shall be under the hand of the court and entered in full upon a record kept for that purpose, and upon such final hearing of such peti- tion the applicant and witnesses shall be examined under oath before the court and in the presence of the court. Sec. 10. That in case the petitioner has not resided in the State, Territory, or district for a period of five years continuously and immediately preceding the filing of his petition he may establish by two witnesses, both in his petition and at the hearing, the time of his residence wthin the State, provided that it has been for more than one year, and the remaining portion of his five years' residence within the United States required by law to be established may be proved by the depositions of two or more witnesses who are citizens of the United States, upon notice to the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization and the United States attorney for the district in which said witnesses may reside. Sec. 11. That the United States shall have the right to appear before any court or courts exercising jurisdiction in naturalization proceedings for the pur- pose of cross-examining the petitioner and the witnesses produced in support of his petition concerning any matter touching or in any way affecting his right to admission to citizenship, and shall have the right to call witnesses, produce evidence, and be heard in opposition to the granting of any petition in natural- ization proceedings. Sec. 12. That it is hereby made the duty of the clerk of each and every court exercising jurisdiction in naturalization matters under the provisions of this Act to keep and file a duplicate of each declaration of intention made before him and to send to the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization at Washing- ton, within thirty days after the issuance of a certificate of citizenship, a dupli- cate of such certificate, and to make and keep on file in his office a stub for each certificate so issued by him, whereon shall be entered a memorandum of all the essential facts set forth in such certificate. It shall also be the duty of the clerk of each of said courts to report to the said Bureau, within thirty clays after the final hearing and decision of the court, the name of each and every alien who shall be denied naturalization, and to furnish to said Bureau dupli- cates of all petitions within thirty days after the filing of the same, and certi- fied copies of such other proceedings and orders instituted in or issued out of said court affecting or relating to the naturalization of aliens as may be re- quired from time to time by the said Bureau. In case any such clerk or officer acting under his direction shall refuse or neglect to comply with any of the foregoing provisions he shall forfeit and pay to the United States the sum of twenty-five dollars in each and every case in which such violation or omission occurs, and the amount of such forfeiture may be recovered by the United States in an action of debt against such cleric. Clerks of courts having and exercising jurisdiction in naturalization mat- ters shall be responsible for all blank certificates of citizenship received by them from time to time from the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization, and shall account for the same to the said Bureau whenever required so to do by such Bureau. No certificate of citizenship received by any such clerk which may be defaced or injured in such manner as to prevent its use as herein provided shall in any case be destroyed, but such certificate shall be returned to the said Bureau ; and in ease any such clerk shall fail to return or properly account for any certificate furnished by the said Bureau, as herein provided, he shall be liable to the United States in the sum of fifty dollars, to be recovered in an action of debt, for each and» every certificate not properly accounted for or returned. Sec. 13. That the clerk of each and every court exercising jurisdiction ri naturalization cases shall charge, collect, and account for the following fees in each proceeding : For receiving and filing a declaration of intention and issuing a duplicate thereof, one dollar. For making, filing, and docketing the petition of an alien for admission as a citizen of the United States and for the final hearing thereon, two dollars ; 188 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. and for entering the final order and the issuance of the certificate of citizen- ship thereunder, if granted, two dollars. The clerk of any court collecting such fees is hereby authorized to retain one-half of the fees collected by him in such naturalization proceeding; the remaining one-half of the naturalization fees in each case collected by such clerks, respectively, shall be accounted for in their quarterly accounts, which they are hereby required to render the Bureau of Immigration and Natural- ization, and paid over to such Bureau within thirty days from the close of each quarter in each and every fiscal year, and the moneys so received shall be paid over to the disbursing clerk of the Department of Cominerce and Labor, who shall thereupon deposit them in the Treasury of the United States, rendering an account therefor quarterly to the Auditor for the State and other Departments, and the said disbursing clerk shall be held responsible under his bond for said fees so received. In addition to the fees herein required, the petitioner shall, upon the filing of his petition to become a citizen of the United States, deposit with and pay to the clerk of the court a sum of money sufficient to cover the expenses of subpoenaing and paying the legal fees of any witnesses for whom he may request a subpoena, and upon the final discharge of such witnesses they shall receive, if they demand the same from the clerk, the customary and usual witness fees from the moneys which the petitioner shall have paid to such clerk for such purpose, and the residue, if any, shall be returned by the clerk to the peti- tioner : Provided, That the clerks of courts exercising jurisdiction in natu- ralization proceedings shall be permitted to retain one-half of the fees in any fiscal year up to the sum of three thousand dollars, and that all fees received by such clerks in naturalization proceedings in excess of such amount shall be accounted for and paid over to said Bureau as in case of other fees to which the United States may be entitled under the provisions of this Act. The clerks of the various courts exercising jurisdiction in naturalization pro- ceedings shall pay all additional clerical force that may be required in perform- ing the duties imposed by this Act upon the clerks of courts from fees received by such clerks in naturalization proceedings. And in case the clerk of any court collects fees in excess of the sum of six thousand dollars in any one year, the Secretary of Commerce and Labor may allow to such clerk from the money which the United States shall receive additional compensation for the employment of additional clerical assistance, but for no other purpose, if in the opinion of the said Secretary the business of such clerk warrants such allowance. Sec. 14. That the declarations of intention and the petitions for naturaliza- tion shall be bound in chronological order in separate volumes, indexed, con- secutively numbered, and made part of the records of the court. Each certificate of naturalization issued shall bear upon its face, in a place prepared therefor, the volume number and. page number of the petition whereon such certificate was issued, and the volume number and page number of the stub of such certificate. Sec. 15. That it shall be the duty of the United States district attorneys for the respective districts, upon affidavit showing good cause therefor, to institute proceedings in any court having jurisdiction to naturalize aliens in the judicial district in which the naturalized citizen may reside at the time of bringing the suit, for the purpose of setting aside and canceling the certificate of citizenship on the ground of fraud or on the ground that such certificate of citizenship was illegally procured. In any such proceedings the party holding the certificate of citizenship alleged to have been fraudulently or illegally procured shall have sixty days personal notice in which to make answer to the petition of the United States ; and if the holder of such certificate be absent from the United States or from the district in which he last had his residence, such notice shall be given by publication in the manner provided for the service of sum- mons by publication or upon absentees by the laws of the State or the place where such suit is brought. If any alien who shall have secured a certificate of citizenship under the pro- visions of this Act shall, within five years after the issuance of such certificate, return to the country of his nativity, or go to any other foreign country, and take permanent residence therein, it shall be considered prima facie evidence of a lack of intention on the part of such alien to become a permanent citizen of the United States at the time of filing his application for citizenship, and, in the absence of countervailing evidence, it shall be sufficient in the proper proceeding to authorize the cancellation of his certificate of citizenship as CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 189 fraudulent, and the diplomatic and consular officers of the United States in foreign countries shall from time to time, through the Department of State, furnish the Department of Justice with the names of those within their respec- tive jurisdictions who have such certificates of citizenship and who have taken permanent residence in the country of their nativity, or in any other foreign country, and such statements, duly certified, shall be admissible in evidence in all courts in proceedings to cancel certificates of citizenship. Whenever any certificate of citizenship shall be set aside or canceled, as herein provided, the court in which such judgment or decree is rendered shall make an order canceling such certificate of citizenship and shall send a certified copy of such order to the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization ; and in case such certificate was not originally issued by the court making such order it shall direct the clerk of the court to transmit a copy of such order and judg- ment to the court out of which such certificate of citizenship shall have been originally issued. And it shall thereupon be the duty of the clerk of the court receiving such certified copy of the order and judgment of the court to enter the same of record and to cancel such original certificate of citizenship upon the records and to notify the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization of such cancellation. The provisions of this section shall apply not only to certificates of citizenship issued under the provisions of this Act, but to all certificates of citizenship which may have been issued heretofore by any court exercising jurisdiction in naturalization proceedings under prior laws. Sec. 16. That every person who falsely makes, forges, counterfeits, or causes or procures to be falsely made, forged, or counterfeited, or knowingly aids or assists in falsely making, forging, or counterfeiting any certificate of citizenship, with intent to use the same, or with the intent that the same may be used by some other person or persons, shall be guilty of a felony, and a person convicted of such offense shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten years, or by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars, or by both such fine aud imprisonment. Sec 17. That every person who engraves or causes or procures to be engraved, or assists in engraving, any plate in the likeness of any plate designed for the printing of a certificate of citizenship, or who sells any such plate, or who brings into the United States from any foreign place any such plate, except under the direction of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, or other proper officer, and any person who has in his control, custody, or possession any metallic plate engraved after the similitude of any plate from which any such certifi- cate has been printed, with intent to use such plate or suffer the same to be used in forging or counterfeiting any such certificate or any part thereof ; and every person who prints, photographs, or in any other manner causes to be printed, photographed, made, or executed, any print or impression in the likeness of any such certificate, or any part thereof, or who sells any such certificate, or brings the same into the United States from any foreign place, except by direc- tion of some proper officer of the United States, or who has in his possession a distinctive paper which has been adopted by the proper officer of the United States for the printing of such certificate, with intent to unlawfully use the same, shall be punished by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars, or by imprisonment at hard labor for not more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Sec. 18. That it is hereby made a felony for any clerk or other person to issue or be a party to the issuance of a certificate of citizenship contrary to the pro- visions of this Act, except upon a final order under the hand of a court having jurisdiction to make such order, and upon conviction thereof such clerk or other person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years and by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars, in the discretion of the court. Sec. 19. That every person who without lawful excuse is possessed of any blank certificate of citizenship provided by the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization, with intent unlawfully to use the same, shall be imprisoned at hard labor not more than five years or be fined not more than one thousand dollars. Sec. 20. That any clerk or other officer of a court having power under this Act to naturalize aliens, who willfully neglects to render true accounts of moneys received by him for naturalization proceedings or who willfully neglects to pay over any balance of such moneys due to the United States within thirty days after said payment shall become due and demand therefor has been made and refused, shall be deemed guilty of embezzlement of the 190 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. public moneys, and shall be punishable by imprisonment for not more than five years, or by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars, or both. Sec. 21. That it shall be unlawful for any clerk of any court or his authorized deputy or assistant exercising jurisdiction in naturalization proceedings, or to demand, charge, collect, or receive any other or additional fees or moneys in naturalization proceedings save the fees and moneys herein specified; and a violation of any of the provisions of this section or any part thereof is hereby declared to be a misdemeanor and shall be punished by imprisonment for not move than two years, or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Sec. 22. That the clerk of any court exercising jurisdiction in naturalization proceedings, or any person acting under authority of this Act, who shall know- ingly certify that a petitioner, affiant, or witness named in an affidavit, petition, or certificate of citizenship, or other paper or writing required to be executed under the provisions of this Act, personally appeared before him and was sworn thereto, or acknowledged the execution thereof or signed the same, when in fact such petitioner, affiant, or witness did not personally appear before him, or was not sworn thereto, or did not execute the same, or did not acknowledge the execution thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not to exceed five years. Sec. 23. That any person who knowingly procures naturalization in violation of the provisions of this Act shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or shall be imprisoned not more than five years, or both, and upon conviction the court in which such conviction is had shall thereupon adjudge and declare the final order admitting such person to citizenship void. Jurisdiction is hereby conferred on the courts having jurisdiction of the trial of such offense to make such adjudication. Any person who knowingly aids, advises, or encourages any person not entitled thereto to apply for or to secure naturalization, or to file the preliminary papers declaring an intent to become a citizen of the United States, or who in any naturalization proceeding knowingly procures or gives false testimony as to any material fact, or who knowingly makes an affidavit false as to any material fact required to be proved in such proceeding, shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Sec. 24. That no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any crime arising under the provisions of this Act unless the indictment is found or the information is filed within five years- next after the commission of such crime. Sec. 25. That for the purpose of tbf> prosecution of all crimes and offenses against the naturalization laws of the United States which may have been com- mitted prior to the date when this Act shall go into effect, the existing naturali- zation laws shall remain in full force and effect. Sec. 26. That sections twenty-one hundred and sixty-five, twenty-one hundred and sixty-seven, twenty-one hundred and sixty-eight, twenty-one hundred and seventy-three, of the Revised Statutes of the United States of America, and sec- tion thirty-nine of chapter one thousand and twelve of the Statutes at Large of the United States of America for the year nineteen hundred and three, and all Acts or parts of Acts inconsistent with or repugnant to the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed. Sec. 27. That substantially the following forms shall be used in the proceed- ings to which they relate : declaration of intention. (Invalid for all purposes seven years after the date hereof.) , ss : I, , aged years, occupation , do declare on oath (affirm) that my personal description is; Color , complexion , height , weight color of hair , color of eyes , other visible distinctive marks ; I was born in on the day of , anno Domini ; I now reside at ; I emigrated to the United States of America from on the vessel ; my last foreign residence was It is my bona fide intention to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, and particularly to , of which I am now a citizen (subject) ; I arrived at the (port) of , in the State (Territory or District) of on or about the — CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 191 day of anno Domini ; I ani not an anarchist ; I am not a polyga- niist nor a believer in the practice of polygamy ; and it is my intention in good faith to become a citizen of the United States of America and to permanently reside therein. So heip me God. (Original signature of declarant) Subscribed and sworn to (affirmed) before me this day of , anno Domini [L, s.] (Official character of attestor.) PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION. Court Of In the matter of the petition of to be admitted as a citizen of the United States of America. To the Court : The petition of respectfully shows : First. My full name is Second. My place of residence is number street, city of , State (Territory or District) of Third. My occupation is Fourth. I was born on the day of at Fifth. I emigrated to the United States from , on or about the day of , anno Domini , and arrived at the port of , in the United States, on the vessel Sixth. I declared my intention to become a citizen of the United States on the day of at , in the court of Seventh. I am married. My wife's name is She was born in and now resides at I have children, and the name, date, and place of birth and place of residence of each of said children is as follows: ; ; Eighth. I am not a disbeliever in or opposed to organized government or a member of or affiliated with any organization or body of persons teaching dis- belief in organized government. I am not a polygamist nor a believer in the practice of polygamy. I am attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and it is my intention to become a citizen of the United States and to renounce absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, and particularly to , of which at this time I am a citizen (or subject), and it is my intention to reside perma- nently in the United States. Ninth. I am able to speak the English language. Tenth. I have resided continuously in the United States of America for a term of five years at least immediately preceding the date of this petition, to wit, since , anno Domini , and in the State (Territory or District) of for one year at least next preceding the date of this petition, to wit, since day of , anno Domini Eleventh. I have not heretofore made petition for citizenship to any court. (I made petition for citizenship to the court of at , and the said petition was denied by the said court for the following reasons and causes, to wit, , and the cause of such denial has since been cured or removed. ) Attached hereto and made a part of this petition are my declaration of inten- tion to become a citizen of the United States and the certificate from the Depart- ment of Commerce and Labor required by law. Wherefore your petitioner prays that he may be admitted a citizen of the United States of America. Dated (Signature of petitioner) , ss : , being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the petitioner in the above-entitled proceeding ; that he has read the foregoing petition and knows the contents thereof ; that the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and that as to those matters he believes it to be true. Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , anno Domini [i. s.] . Clerk of the Court. 192 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. AFFIDAVIT OF WITNESSES. Court Of In the matter of the petition of , to be admitted a citizen of the United States of America. , ss : , occupation , residing at and , occu- pation , residing at , each being severally, duly, and respectively sworn, deposes and says that he is a citizen of the United States of America; that he has personally known , the petitioner above mentioned, to be a resident of the United States for a period of at least five years con- tinuously immediately preceding the date of filing his petition, and of the State (Territory or District) in which the above-entitled application is made for a period of years immediately preceding the date of filing his petition; and that he has personal knowledge that the said petitioner is a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and that he is in every way qualified, in his opinion, to be admitted as a citizen of the United States. Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , nineteen hun- dred and [L. S.l , (Official character of attestor). CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION. Number Petition, volume , page Stub, volume , page ' (Signature of holder) Description of holder : Age, ; height, ; color, ; com- plexion, ; color of eyes, ; color of hair, ; visible distin- guishing marks, Name, age, and place of residence of wife, , , !_. Names, ages, and places of residence of minor children, , Be it remembered, that at a term of the court of , held .at on the day of ,' in the year of our Lord nineteen hun- dred and , , who previous to his (her) naturalization was a citizen or subject of , at present residing at number street, city (town), State (Territory or District), having applied to be admit- ted a citizen of the United States of America pursuant to law, and the court having found that the petitioner had resided continuously within the United States for at least five years and in this State for one year immediately pre- ceding the date of the hearing of his (her) petition, and that said petitioner intends to reside permanently in the United States, had in all respects complied with the law in relation thereto, and that __he was entitled to be so admitted, it was thereupon ordered by the said court that __he be admitted as a citizen of the United States of America. In testimony whereof the seal of said court is hereunto affixed on the day of , in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and , and of our independence the [L. S.] (Official character of attestor). STUB OF CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION. No. of certificate, Name ; age, Declaration of intention, volume , page Petition, volume , page CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 193 Name, age, and place of residence of wife, , Names ages, and places of residence of minor children, , , • _ Date of order, volume page (Signature of holder) Sec. 28. That the Secretary of Commerce and Labor shall have power to make such rules and regulations as may be necessary for properly carrying into execution the various provisions of this Act. Certified copies* of all papers, documents, certificates, and records required to be used, filed, recorded, or kept under any and all of the provisions of this Act shall be admitted in evidence equally with the originals in any and all proceedings under this Act and in all cases in which the originals thereof might be admissible as evidence. Sec. 29. That for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act there is hereby appropriated the sum of one hundred thousand dollars, out of any moneys in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, which appropriation shall be in full for the objects hereby expressed until June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and seven; and the provisions of section thirty-six hundred and seventy-nine of the Revised Statutes of the United States shall not be applicable in any way to this appropriation. Sec. 30. That all the applicable provisions of the naturalization laws of the United States shall apply to and be held to authorize the admission to citizerf- ship of all persons not citizens who owe permanent allegiance to the United States, and who may become residents of any State or organized Territory of the United States, with the following modifications : The applicant shall not be required to renounce allegiance to any foreign sovereignty ; he shall make his declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United States at least two years prior to his admission ; and residence within the jurisdiction of the United States, owing such permanent allegiance, shall be regarded as residence within the United States within the meaning of the five years' residence clause of the existing law. Sec 31. That this Act shall take effect and be in force from and after, ninety days from the date of its passage : Provided, That sections one, two, twenty- eight, and twenty-nine shall go into effect from and after the passage of this Act. Approved, June 29, 1906. (34 Stat. L. 596.) naturalization regulations. Department of Commerce and Laeor, Office of the Secretary, Washington, October 2, 1906. 1. On and after September 27, 1906, declarations of intention to become citi- zens of the United States shall be filed with the clerks of such State courts only as have " a seal, a clerk, and jurisdiction in actions at law or equity, or law and equity, in which the amount in controversy is unlimited." 2. Declarations of intention made prior to September 27, 3906, before clerks of courts having jurisdiction to naturalize aliens under the provisions of the law existing at the time such declarations were made may be used in lieu of the declarations required by the act of June 29, 1906, at any time after the expira- tion of two years from the date when made. 3. Aliens who have made declarations of intention prior to September 27, 1906, under the provisions of law in force at the time of making such declarations, can not be required, as a preliminary to filing their petitions for naturalization, to file new declarations of intention under the act of June 29, 1906 ; nor are such aliens required, as a condition precedent to naturalization, to speak the English language. 4. Aliens who make the declaration of intention required by law prior to Sep- tember 27, 1906, unless they can be naturalized before that date under the laws then in force, must comply with the requirements of the act of June 29, 1906, in regard to the filing of petitions for naturalization and furnishing proof, except that they will not be required to speak the English language or to sign petitions in their own handwriting. H. Doc. 326, 59-2 13 194 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATKIATION, ETC. 5. Declarations of intention will be furnished in bound volumes (Form 2202, 2202A, or 2202B), as a court record, varying in size according to the amount of such business transacted by the court. In addition to the bound records, the duplicate and triplicate declarations of intention (Form 2203) will be furnished as loose sheets attached together and perforated, so that they can be readily torn apart, the triplicate to be given to the petitioner and the duplicate to be forwarded to the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization (Division of Naturalization). Each bound record will consist of the original declarations of intention, paged in consecutive order and indexed. These volumes are to be numbered and will form a permanent record of the court. 6. The original of the petitions for naturalization will also be furnished in bound volumes (Form 2204, 2204A, or 2204B) of varying size, paged in con- secutive order and indexed. The duplicate petitions (Form 2205) will be fur- nished as loose sheets and must be forwarded to the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization (Division of Naturalization) within thirty days after execu- tion. The original petitions for naturalization must be filled out and signed in the bound volumes, and remain as a part of the permanent records of the office in which filed. 7. Certificates of naturalization (Form 2207) will be supplied in bound vol- umes consisting of original and duplicate certificates and stubs. Each original and duplicate certificate and the stub will be given the same serial number, the stub to the original certificate bearing a page number in addition to its serial number. Each book will bear a volume number, and the volume number and page of the stub must be given on the face of the certificate. The original certificate will be given to the petitioner in accordance with the final order of the court, and the duplicate shall be forwarded to the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization (Division of Naturalization) by registered mail within thirty days after the issuance of the original, the stub to the original consti- tuting a part of the permanent records of the court. 8. No certificate of naturalization shall be issued to a petitioner until after the judge of the court granting naturalization has signed the order to that effect. 9. Clerks of courts will be furnished with requisition blanks (Form 2201) on which are listed, by number and title, all blank forms, including record and order .books, to be used in the naturalization of aliens, and these forms must be obtained exclusively from the Department of Commerce and Labor (Divi- sion of Naturalization), none other being official. Manila envelopes or jackets (Form 2211) will be furnished to clerks in which to place the triplicate decla- ration of intention or the original certificate of naturalization before delivering them to the person making the declaration or to the person naturalized. 10. The first supply of blank forms will be furnished upon the written applica- tion of the clerks of courts having jurisdiction to naturalize aliens, accompanied, in the case of clerks of State courts, by authoritative evidence (preferably the certificate of the attorney-general of the State) that the courts of which such clerks are officers have " a seal, a clerk, and jurisdiction in actions at law or equity, or law and equity, in which the amount in controversy is unlimited." Subsequent supplies of such blank forms will be furnished the clerks of courts having jurisdiction to naturalize aliens upon the receipt by the Bureau of Immi- gration and Naturalization (Division of Naturalization) of requisitions made on Form 2201. 11. Clerks of courts when first making applications to the Bureau of Immigra- tion and Naturalization (Division of Naturalization) for supplies of the blank forms required in the naturalization of aliens shall state, as to the two years next preceding the date of such application, the number of declarations of- inten- tion filed with them and the number of orders of naturalization made by their courts, respectively. 12. All applications for supplies of certificates of naturalization (Form 2207) should be accompanied by a statement of the number, if any, of certificates of naturalization issued by the clerks of courts making such applications since June 1, 10U3, if such certificates failed to comply with the requirements of the immi- gration act of March 3, 1903. 13. Where the same court holds sessions at different places, whether a clerk is appointed at each of said places or the one clerk is required to transact the business of the court wherever it may sit, separate supplies shall be kept, in order to comply with the requirements of section 14 of the naturalization act, which provides that the bound declarations of intention and of petitions for naturalization shall be in chronological order. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 195 14. In every case in which the name of a naturalized alien is changed by order of court, as provided" in section 6, the clerks of courts are required to report to the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization (Division of Naturaliza- tion), when transmitting to it the duplicate of the certificate of naturalization of the alien whose name is changed, both the original and the new name of the said person. 15. Within thirty days after posting the notice (Form 2206) required by sec- tion 5 of the naturalization act of June 29, 1906, the clerk shall inform the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization (Division of Naturalization), on Form 2209, of the date, as near as may be, for the final hearing of each and every petition for naturalization. 16. Applications for the issuance of declarations of intention (Form 2203) or certificates of naturalization (Form 2207), in lieu of declarations of intention or certificates of naturalization claimed to have been lost or destroyed, shall be made under oath to the clerk of the court by which any such declarations of intention or certificates of naturalization were originally issued, and shall con- tain full information in regard to the lost or destroyed papers, and as to the time, place, and circumstances of such alleged loss or destruction. The clerk shall forward to the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization (Division of Naturalization) the above-mentioned applications, together with such informa- tion as he may have bearing upon the merits thereof, for investigation, and no such paper so applied for shall be issued until the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization (Division of Naturalization) reports the results of its investiga- tion as to the merits of the application. 17. In every case in which the clerk of a court issues, in accordance with the preceding rule, a declaration of intention (Form 2203) or a certificate of naturalization (Form 2207), upon proof of the loss or destruction of the original, he shall make an entry on the original declaration, or on the stub of the original certificate of naturalization, as the case may require, showing the issuance of a new paper and the number thereof, and shall immediately there- after forward to the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization (Division of Naturalization) the duplicate of any such paper so issued. 18. If an alien is physically unable to speak, that fact should be stated in his petition for naturalization in lieu of the statement, " I am able to speak the English language." 19. Within thirty clays after the sitting of a court in naturalization cases, the clerk of such court shall forward to the Bureau of Immigration and Naturaliza- tion (Division of Naturalization), on Form 2210, a list containing the name of each and every alien who, during such sitting of court, has been denied naturalization, and the reason or reasons for such denial. 20. The names of aliens making declarations of intention, or filing petitions for naturalization, must be entered in full in the appropriate places on the various blank forms, without abbreviation, and the signatures of such aliens must also be written out without abbreviation. Great care should be taken to get in every case the correct spelling of names. 21. Clerks of courts shall not receive declarations of intention (Form 2203) to become citizens from other aliens than white persons and persons of African nativity or of African descent. 22. Beginning with October 1, 1906, and on the first working day of each and every month thereafter, clerks of courts shall forward to the Bureau of Immi- gration and Naturalization (Division of Naturalization) duplicate declarations of intention and petitions for naturalization filed, and all duplicates of certifi- cates of naturalization issued during the preceding month. Duplicate petitions for naturalization and duplicate certificates of naturalization shall be forwarded by registered mail ; and duplicate declarations of intention shall be sent there- with, provided the combined weight of the documents does not exceed 4 pounds, otherwise they shall be forwarded in a separate package by unregistered mail. The clerks making such shipments are required to notify the Chief of the Divi- sion of Naturalization of the date thereof, by unregistered mail, on Form 2208, provided for that purpose. In transmitting petitions clerks of courts are di- rected to state that the names of the petitioners and their witnesses have been conspicuously posted, as required by law. 23. All fees provided for in section 13 of the act of June 29, 1906, collected by clerks of courts during any quarter of a fiscal year, shall be accounted for within thirty days after the close of such quarter, on Form 2212, provided for that purpose; and one-half of all moneys so collected shall be remitted to the 196 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATBIATION, ETC. Chief of the Division of Naturalization, Bureau of Immigration and Naturaliza- tion, with said quarterly accounts. In cases where no naturalization business is transacted during any quarter, said blank form shall be forwarded as afore- said, with the words " No transactions " noted thereon. 24. Under section 2166 of the Revised Statutes, an honorably discharged soldier, who is of the age of 21 years and upward, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States without making the declaration of intention re- quired of other aliens. Also, under the provisions of the act of July 26, 1894, chapter 165, any alien, of the age of 21 years and upward, who has enlisted, or may enlist, in the United States Navy or Marine Corps, having been honorably discharged therefrom, after a residence of five years may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States without making the declaration or intention re- quired of other aliens. Clerks of courts are therefore instructed to appro- priately note upon the petition of such discharged alien soldier or member of the Navy or Marine Corps, and upon the stub of the certificate of naturalization issued to him, in lieu of the information required thereon as to the filing of the declaration of intention, that the petitioner was an honorably dscharged alien soldier, or member of the Navy or Marine Corps, and applied for citizenship under the said section 2166, or the act of July 26, 1894. 25. So far as is practicable, the clerks of courts having jurisdiction under the provisions of the naturalization laws will be furnished with appropriately ad- dressed envelopes for communicating with the Bureau. When not using such envelopes, however, all communications, in addition to the other necessary address, should be plainly marked " Division of Naturalization." 26. Clerks of courts having jurisdiction to naturalize under the provisions of the act of June 29, 1906, are requested, in case the foregoing rules and regu- lations fail to remove from their minds doubt as to the proper course of action in any case, to write to the Chief of the Division of Naturalization. Bureau of Immigrantion and Naturalization, for instructions before taking such action. V. H. Metcalf, Secretary. B. Extraterritoriality as x^jffecting Questions of Nationality and Citizenship. what is extraterritoriality? * Grotius defines extraterritoriality as a situation in which " there are persons who retain to themselves their forum and territory and are as if they were not resident and are not subject to the laws of the people amongst whom they live." a The following works have been freely used in this section of the report: American Consular Jurisdiction in the Orient, by Frank E. Hinckley, Washing- ton, D. C, 1906 (cited, Hinckley) ; Foreign Jurisdiction of the British Crown, by William Edward Hall, London, 1894 (cited, Hall) ; Consular Jurisdiction and Residence in Oriental Countries, by Francis Taylor Piggott, London, 1892 (cited, Piggott). » The words " exterritoriality " and " extraterritoriality " are treated by some writers as identical ; by others as indicating, the first, the privilege of ambassa- dors and their suites ; the second, the treaty privilege under which consular jurisdiction has been established in the East. Both these privileges are, however, more correctly described as "exterrito- rial ; " the conditions of those to whom they are accorded as " exterrito- riality." On the other hand, the government of these privileged persons, by their own authorities from home, is "extraterritorial." [Piggott — Exterrito- riality, note, p. 3.] Inasmuch as this report deals with the question rather from the extraterrito- rial point of view, as the words are used by Mr. Piggott, this term will be uni- formly used without any attempt to distinguish with technical accuracy be- tween exterritoriality and extraterritoriality. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 1^)7 A learned French writer expressed exactly the same idea when he said that a foreigner enjoying extraterritoriality " always preserves his nationality and his civil and political rights as if he had never ceased to preserve his residence and his domicil " in his native land. (Ferand-Girard — Jurisdiction Francaise, vo. 2, p. 58.) The views of the text writers are reaffirmed by the courts. The often-quoted language of Lord Stowell in the Indian Chief (3 Charles Robinson, page 12) defines extraterritoriality as — a rule of the law of nations, applying peculiarly to those countries, and [is] different from what prevails ordinarily in Europe and the western parts of the world, in which men take their present national character from the general character of the country in which they are resident ; and this distinction arises from the nature and habit of the countries. In the western parts of the world alien merchants mix in the society of the natives ; access and intermixture are permitted ; and they become incorporated to almost the full extent. But in the East, from the oldest times, an immiscible character has been kept up ; for- eigners are not admitted into the general body and mass of the society of the nation ; they continue strangers and sojourners as all their fathers were — Doris amara suan non intermiseuit undam — not acquiring any national character under the general sovereignty of the country, and not trading under any recog- nized authority of their own original country, they have been held to derive their present character from that of the association or factory under whose protection they live and cary on their trade. More recently Lord Watson, delivering the opinion of the Privy Council in the case of Abdul-Messih Farra (13 Ap. Cas., 440), stated that foreigners residing in semibarbarous countries in which extra- territorial jurisdiction is exercised form — ■ an anomalous extraterritorial colony of persons of different nationalities having unity in relation to the (native) government, but altogether devoid of such unity when examined by itself ; the consequence being that its members continue to preserve their nationality and their civil and political rights just as if they had never ceased to have their residence and domicil in their own country. The same idea has been tersely and accurately expressed in the British foreign jurisdiction act (6 and 7 Victoria, Chap. XCIV), where in conferring the power to exercise extraterritorial jurisdic- tion the act provides : That it is and shall be lawful for Her Majesty to hold, exercise, and enjoy any power or jurisdiction which Her Majesty now hath or may at any time here- after have within any country or place out of Her Majesty's dominions, in the same and as ample a manner as if Her Majesty had acquired such power or jurisdiction by the cession or conquest of territory. In the language of Secretary Frelinghuysen, in the case of the grant of extraterritorial jurisdiction, " The national sovereignty of law is transferred bodily into a foreign soil and made applicable to citi- zens or subjects of its own nationality dwelling there." (Secretary of State to Hon. Wm. Windom, chairman Committee on Foreign Re- lations, U. S. Senate, April 29, 1882, Senate Mis. Doc. No. 89, 47th Cong.) Extraterritorial jurisdiction is a survival of or reversion to the time when sovereignty was personal rather than territorial; when there was a King of the English rather than a King of England. It means the establishment of an imperium in imperio. It means the legal recognition of the existence of a foreign colony in a native state whose members remain, in the picturesque language of Lord Stowell, " immiscible," perpetuating their own institutions, governed by their own laws, and responsible to their own officers. 198 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. ORIGIN OF EXTRATERRITORIALITY. The doctrine of extraterritoriality is of ancient origin. The solidarity of modern civilization is of comparatively recent growth. National, racial, and religious distinctions, which usually had the same points of cleavage, assumed in former times an importance which seems hardly credible at present. Witness the old expressions " Greek and barbarian," " Jew and. gentile," with all their implica- tions. Even after the inauguration of the Christian era this situa- tion remained. The hatred betwen the various sects of Christians was hardly less than that between Christian and Mohammedan. The cry " Better the Moslem than the Latin hat " sealed the fall of Con- stantinople. " In early times a consul in an European port habit- ually exercised quasi-Judicial functions as between the merchants of his own country ; he, at least in some places, composed differences between his own people and the local traders, and caused satisfaction to be made in cases of injury and even of violence done to the latter. Sometimes the powers with which consuls were invested appear to have been assumed independently of the territorial sovereignty. The letters patent given to Lorenzo Strozzi, by Richard III in 1485, seem to rest rather upon the general usage of nations than upon any antecedent grant of privileges from Pisa, where the consulate was to be established; they moreover contain a direct creation of a royal magistracy, and put under it not merchants only, but all subjects of the Crown in those parts." (Hall — Foreign Jurisdiction of the British Crown, pp. 132, 133.) Historically it is undoubtedly true, us shown by numerous authorities quoted by Mr. Warden in his treatise on " The Origin and Nature of Consular Estab- lishments." that the consul was originally an officer of I-u'ge judicial as well ns commercial powers, exercising entire municipal authority over his countrymen in the country to which he was accredited. But the changed circumstances of Europe, and the prevalence of civil order ia the several Christian States, have had the effect of greatly modifying the powers of the consular office ; and it may now be considered as generally true that, for any judicial powers which may be vested in the consuls accredited to any nation, we must look to the express pro- visions of the treaties entered into with that nation, and to the laws of the States which the consuls represent. (Dainese v. Hale, 91 U. S.. p. 15-16.) But especially was this peculiar doctrine of extraterritoriality developed in the Levant : Such municipal colonies, organized by the Latin Christians, and specially by those of the Italian Republics, in the Levant, were administered, each by its consuls — that is, its proper municipal magistrates, of the well-known municipal denomination. Their commercial relation to the business of their country mei1 was a mere incident of their general municipal authority. Such, also, at the outset was the nature of their political relation to other coexisting nationalities around them in the same country, and to that country's own supreme political or military powers. (7 Op. Atty. Gen., 342 at 346.) During the two or three centuries before America was discovered the North Italian cities of Venice, Genoa, Pisa, and Florence, and other western cities of Marseille and Barcelona obtained from the Greek Christian rulers at Constan- tinople, and later from their Mohammedan conquerors, numerous charters for the protection of their commerce and for the exemption from the local govern- ment of their mercantile communities residing in the Levant. These charters, being set out in articles or capitula, acquired the name capitulations, a term now generally used to denote treaties with Turkey prior to the nineteenth century. (Hinckley — American Consular Jurisdiction in the Orient, pp. 2-3.) (For a detailed account of the various decrees and capitulations under which this extraterritorial jurisdiction was enjoyed by the Italian and other western cities, see Hinckley, pp. 3-5.) CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 199 With the fajl of Constantinople and the coming of the Turk the necessity for extraterritorial privileges for western Christians in the Levant became more marked. In fact such extraterritoriality became absolutely essential for any continued commercial relations between the East and West. When tiie Porte took possession of Turkey its population was largely made up of Christian nationalities, to which local self-government had been previously more or less assigned. These nationalities could not be expelled from Turkey without expelling the population by which its fields were tilled and its business exchanges conducted. On the other hand, the Porte could not undertake the municipal control of such nationalities, nor the settlement of their business dif- ferences, nor the supervision of their religious functions. Those who rejected Mohammed were to the Turk not merely enemies but Giaours — unclean persons — persons with whom the Turk could have no business or even social relations. Hence they were to be excluded from Turkish armies. While they might be taxed for imperial purposes, they were, so far as concerns their own particular interests, to determine themselves the taxes they were to bear. In Turkish schools their children could not be received, and therefore they were entitled to have schools of their own in which the teaching was to be distinctively Christian, and which were regarded as part of the system of diverse nationality recognized by ancient usage and essential to the existence of the Empire. And so it was with regard to the settlement of business disputes. As the Porte, or its courts, whatever they might have been, could not, without abandoning its fundamental ■doctrine of creed isolation, take cognizance of business disputes between unbe- lievers, these disputes must be settled by courts of the nationalities to which these unbelievers respectively belonged. And if questions of religion were involved, such disputes must be referred for determination to the head of the •church to which the disputants belonged. (For. Rel. 1887, Mr. Bayard to Mr. Straus, pp. 1094-1095.) It will thus be seen that extraterritoriality in its origin in the Levant, and specially in its development after the Moslem conquest, implied no inferiority on the part of the nation in derogation of whose sovereignty the extraterritorial privileges were granted. The western Christian and the Turk were immiscible and both frankly recognized this patent fact, each equalty despising the other but accepting extraterritoriality as the only practical way to maintain commercial relations which were financially advantageous to both. The capitulations in favor of the Italian Republics were gradually extended to the nations of modern Europe. Capitulations in favor of France, dated 1535, 1604, 1673, and 1740 are the basis for all others and for modern treaty rights. Similar capitulations in favor of England were granted in 1538 and 1675, of Holland in 1680. of Aus- tria in 1718, and of Russia in 1783. (See Hinckley, p. 7.) In the third decade of the nineteenth century treaties began to be negotiated between Turkey and the western powers declaring and supplementing the privileges granted by the capitulations. The treaty of the United States under which, as interpreted in the light of custom, our extraterritorial rights in Turkey are still held and exercised, was negotiated in 1830, although the United States had at a much earlier date negotiated treaties securing the privileges of extraterritoriality in various minor Mohammedan states, e. g., with Morocco in 1787, Tunis 1797, Tripoli 1805, Algiers 1815. Later on the system of extraterritoriality developed in Turkey was applied by the great powers and the United States in their relations to China, Persia, Japan, and various other Asiatic powers. China conceded extraterritorial privileges to Great Britain in 1842 and 1843, to the United States in 1844, and Japan conceded civil extraterritoriality to the United States in 1857, while the treaty of 200 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 1858 provided for the jurisdiction of both civil and criminal cases. Extraterritorial privileges were also conceded to Great Britain by- Japan in 1858. (For a further account of the treaties securing extraterritorial privileges see Hinckley, p. 37, et seq. ; see also, infra, Exhibit C.) THE EXTENT AND NATURE OF EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. " The essence of political sovereignty is that it is legally omnipo- tent within its own territory, that it is legally powerless within the territory of another state." (Lewis, Foreign Jurisdiction, p. 1; see also, p. 8, quoted in British Rule and Jurisdiction Beyond the Seas, by Sir H. Jenkyns, p. 123; see also Papayanni w. Russian Steam Navigation Company (the Laconia), 2 Moore P. C. (N. S.), 161.) All extraterritorial power exercised by one nation within the limits of another is in derogation of the sovereignty of the latter nation. It is an exception to the ordinary rule of international law that such treaties should, therefore, upon principle, be strictly con- strued. It must be remembered, however, as was said by Doctor Lushington in his discussion of Maltass t<. Maltass (1 Robinson's Ecclesiastical Reports, p. 76) : Now, in the construction of treaties of this description we can not expect to find the same nicety of strict definition as in modern document!; such as deeds or acts of Parliament ; it has never been the habit of those engaged in diplo- macy to use legal accuracy, but rather to adopt more liberal terms. I think in construing these treaties (the Turkish Capitulations) we ought to look at all the historical circumstances attending them, in order to ascertain what was the true intention of the contracting parties, and to give the widest scope to the language of the treaties in order to embrace within it all the objects intended to be included. (Quoted in Piggott, pp. 85, 86; see also to the same effect In re Ross, 140 U. S., 153 at 480.) In other words, it is a treaty which we are considering, and regard must be had to all the circumstances of the case, to the objects sought to be attained, and the evil sought to be remedied, as well as to the technical rule that treaties in derogation of sovereignty should be strictly construed. Inasmuch as extraterritoriality within a recog- nized state rests in every instance upon treaties, and both the powers granting and obtaining extraterritorial rights have been content to negotiate treaties of varying import, so that it can be confidently affirmed that no two treaties of any power are precisely alike, it is, of course not possible in a report of this nature to give an accurate and detailed description of the character and extent of the- jurisdic- tion enjoyed under the general term of extraterritoriality. Moreover, it must always be remembered that although all extraterritorial power rests upon treaty provision in countries enjoying a constitutional government like* England and the United States, it is necessary that statutory authority be conferred upon the officers of the government who are vested with the exercise of extraterritorial authority. If it be asked what extraterritorial authority is exercised by the United States Government in any country the answer must be found first in the treaty conferring extraterritoriality, and second in the statutes of the United States providing for the exercise of exrater- ritorial power by American consular and diplomatic officers. That is to say, the question concerns itself first with international law and treaty, and second with our own municipal law. An interesting CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 201 illustration of this principle may be found in the consideration of the right to deport or extradite, which is usually considered to be an incident of extraterritoriality conferred by the various treaties and which, for example, is freely exercised by Great Britain under treaties substantially similar in their provisions to those negotiated with the same countries by the United States. Yet, it has been repeatedly held by the Department of State that American consular and diplomatic officers are not authorized to extradite or deport, partly, no doubt, on account of a very reasonable doubt as to whether or not the right is conferred by the treaties, but specifically upon the ground that what- ever may be our treaty rights, Congress has not conferred such power upon American consular and diplomatic officers. (See Hall, 177; Piggott, 101 ; Hinckley, 105 ; Moore's International Law Digest, vol. 4, p. 259; Moore on Extradition, vol. 1, pp. 100 and 106.) It must be remembered also that extraterritorial power is exercised in countries of varying civilization and occupying various stages in international development. Such countries are roughly classified by Piggott in the following language : Briefly, then, between a colony and an absolutely independent country tbere are the following intermediate states : 1. Countries under protection. 2. Countries which have surrendered all judicial jurisdiction over the persons and property of subjects of other countries. 3. Countries in which this surrender is only partial, the sovereignty being retained in the mixed courts. 4. The countries in which this surrender is special, jurisdiction over many cases in which the subjects of other powers are concerned being retained. No. 1 of Mr. Piggott's classification, countries under protection, is of little importance so far as the United States is concerned. One other distinction ought to be made, namely, between countries, however uncivilized, which yet possess the international character- istics of a state and are recognized and dealt with as such by the United States Government through the negotiation of treaties and appointment of diplomatic representatives, etc., and utterly bar- barous, unorganized, or uninhabited countries with which no such international relations are maintained. (See in this connection the special provisions conferring judicial authority upon American con- sular officers " at islands or in countries not inhabited by any civilized people or recognized by any treaty. (Rev. Stat., sec. 4088.) No. 2 of Mr. Piggott's classification is the common case of extra- territoriality, and will be considered somewhat in detail. All general statements made in this report should be considered as applicable only to this variety of extraterritoriality. The situations which are dealt with in the ordinary treaty are thus classified by Mr. Piggott : Criminal jurisdiction : 1. Crimes by subjects against subjects. 2. Crimes by subjects against nationals. 3. Crimes by subjects against foreigners. 4. Crimes by nationals against subjects. 5. Crimes by foreigners against subjects. Civil jurisdiction : 6. Action brought by a subject against a subject. 7. Action brought by a national against a subject. 8. Action brought by a foreigner against a subject. 9. Action brought by a subject against a national 10. Action brought by a subject against a foreigner. 202 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. The term " national " is used to denote a subject of the country in which the treaty rights are acquired. " Subject," to denote a subject of the Queen. " Foreigner," to denote a subject or citizen of a third power. The methods in which jurisdiction of these various situations is distributed are thus described as applicable to the Levant by Attorney-General Cushing in an opinion in regard to the status of - Americans in Turkey, rendered to the Secretary of State October 23, 1855: On the general doctrine thus in force in the Levant, of the exterritoriality of foreign Christians, has been founded a complete system of peculiar municipal and legal administration, consisting of — 1. Turkish tribunals for questions between subjects of the Porte and foreign Christians. 2. Consular courts for the business of each nation of foreign Christians. 3. Trial of questions between foreign Christians of different nations in the consular courts of the defendant's nation. 4. Mixed tribunals of Turkish magistrates and foreign Christians at length substituted by common consent in part for cases between Turks and foreign Christians. 5. Finally, for causes between foreign Christians, the substitution also, at length, of mixed tribunals in place of the separate consular courts, this arrange- ment introduced at first by the legations of Austria, Great Britain, France, and Russia, and then tacitly acceded to by the legations of other foreign Christians. (7 Opinions of Atty. Gen., p. 565 at 569.) In substantial agreement with this is the following statement of Hall: It is everywhere conceded that the British consular courts shall judge in both civil and criminal matters where British subjects alone are concerned. It is admitted almost as universally in principle that where a British subject on the one hand, and a native of the territory or a subject of a third power on the other, are concerned, the proper forum is that of the party against whom pursuit is directed, so that in criminal cases the offender is tried by his own courts, and in civil matters the action is brought in the court of the defendant. It will be noted that the only difference between these statements is as regards the jurisdiction of cases between subjects of the Porte and foreign Christians, which, according to Mr. Cushing's statement, is attributed to Turkish tribunals. Upon this point the statement of Hall represents the general rule, and as a matter of fact the prac- tice in Turkey has tended to follow substantially the rule laid down by Hall, although theoretically the Turkish Government reserves a qualified jurisdiction over cases in which a Turkish subject appears either as plaintiff or defendant. To concede jurisdiction of all cases between natives and foreigners to local courts would be to give up one of the most important extraterritorial rights. In such cases the usual extraterritorial practice is, as stated by Hall, to try the action in the court of the defendant. Occasionally mixed tribunals are substituted. The reasons for this arrangement of jurisdiction are perhaps nowhere better stated than in the following passage from Hall : That cases involving none but British subjects, and no interests other than British interests, should be judged solely by British courts follows almost inevitably from a recognition of the fact that Eastern conceptions of law differ too widely from those of the West to render it possible to subordinate persons belonging to the nations of European civilization to the full local juris- diction ; and if the subjects of a European state will settle their quarrels among themselves, and punish their own crimes efficiently, the Eastern state has no adequate motive for exercising in any point an authority which it has already CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 203 surrendered in principle. That in mixed cases the court of jurisdiction should . be the court of the defendant is at least natural. An accused person is taken to be innocent until he is shown to be guilty ; the allegations in an action have to be proved against the defendant. As between the territorial state and a foreign country, the former can no more be expected to abandon subjects pre- sumably guiltless of wrongdoing to a law of alien ideas and foreign in admin- istration than the European state can be supposed willing to hand over its members to the laws and the courts of the East. As between two foreign countries, since the territorial law is acceptable to neither and the territorial state is disinterested, the consideration that wrongdoing has to be proved again operates, and preference is given to the courts of the person against whom proceedings are taken. (Hall, p. 148.) The somewhat curious results of this system are thus described by Mr. Piggott: The fundamental principle is that the quality of any act is to be governed by the law of the defendant's nationality, and therefore we have this curious result, that a man's duties are governed by his own law — his rights by the law of the person who wrongs him. The civil rights of a Japanese assaulted by an Englishman are corelative to the duties laid on Englishmen by English law. The civil rights of an Englishman assaulted by a Japanese are correlative to the duties laid on Japanese by Japanese law. And so assuming the jurisdic- tion of the respective courts properly founded, the rights of a Russian assaulted by an Italian are to be found declared by Italian law ; and conversely those of an Italian assaulted by a Russian are declared by Russian law. (Piggott, p. 04.) a As regards protective as distinguished from jurisdiction rights, the situation in extraterritorial countries may be summed up in the fol- lowing passage from Hall : Necessarily whatever forms of protection exist in Europe must exist also in the East. Less than the amount of protective supervision which is needed in countries of the same kind and degree of civilization can not suffice in countries of a civilization different in itself, and, from the point of view of the Western nations, of inferior quality. In saying this all has been said which for practical purposes is required. Whatever protective duties there are which go beyond the above range and are imposed upon British agents in Eastern states take a juris- dictional shape. (Hall, p. 134.) CONSTITUTION ALITY. The question of the constitutionality of the extraterritorial juris- diction exercised by the United States has been raised a number of times, but may now be thought to be permanently at rest. ( See an impromptu debate in 1881 in the Senate of the United States between Senator Carpenter, of Wisconsin, and Senator Hoar, of Massachusetts. Congressional Eecord, vol. 2, part 1, pp. 409-416, 46th Cong., 3d sess.) That the framers of the Constitution entertained no doubt as to the constitutionality of this jurisdiction would appear from the fact that the two treaties coferring extraterritorial rights upon the United States were concluded almost simultaneously with the adoption of the Constitution, namely, the treaty with Morocco in January, 1787, and the treaty with France of November 14, 1788, negotiated by Jef- ferson, which contains a provision that all differences and suits between citizens of the United States in France should be determined a No attempt can be made to enter into the particular cases of variance from the general principles here laid down. See as to the exceptional case of Real Estate in Turkey, Hall, p. 147, note 1. As to Mixed Tribunals in Egypt, see Hinckley, pp. 151-158. See also, upon the general subject of the extent of extraterritorial jurisdiction, Jenkyns, p. 24. 204 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. by the consuls and vice-consuls, either by reference to arbitrators or by summary judgment without costs. This most interesting treaty, conferring upon the United States extraterritorial powers in France, was submitted to the Senate by President Washington on June 11, 1789, and was unanimously ac- cepted by that body on the 29th of the following July. (See Freling- huysen report, Senate Mis. Doc, No. 89, 47th Cong., 1st sess., p. 14.) The constitutionality of the extraterritorial legislation of Congress was upheld in the case of Forbes v. Scannel, 1859 (13 Cal., 242, at 250- 263), and was finally set at rest in 1890 by the decision in the case of In re Ross (140 U. S., 453), in which Mr. Justice Field, in sustaining the constitutionality of the conviction of a defendant on trial for a capital offense in a consular court in Japan without a common-law jury, used the following language : By the Constitution a government is ordained and' established " for the United States of America," and not for countries outside of their limits. The guarantees it affords against accusation of capital or infamous crimes, except by indictment or presentment by a grand jury, and for an impartial trial by a jury when thus accused, apply only to citizens and others within the United States, or who are brought there for trial for alleged offenses committed elsewhere, and not to residents or temporary sojourners abroad. * * * The framers of the Consti- tution, who were fully aware of the necessity of having judicial authority exer- cised by our consuls in non-Christian countries, if commercial intercourse was to be had with their people, never could have .supposed that all the guarantees in the administration of the law upon criminals at home were to be transferred to such consular establishments, and applied before an American who had commit- ted a felony there could be accused and tried. They must have known that such a requirement would defeat the main purpose of investing the consul with judicial authority. While, therefore, in one aspect the American accused of crime committed in those- countries is deprived of the guarantees of the Consti- tution against unjust accusation and a partial trial, yet in another aspect he is the gainer, in being withdrawn from the procedure of their tribunals, often arbitrary and oppressive, and sometimes accompanied with extreme cruelty and torture. (In Re Ross, 140 U. S., 453.) The power to assume extraterritorial jurisdiction would seem to be properly referable either to the treaty-making power, the power to regulate foreign commerce, or to the general authority over international affairs entrusted by the Constitution to the National Government. THE NECESSITY TOR EXTRATERRITORIA L JURISDICTION. The United States has always regarded the exercise of extraterri- torial powers as a necessary evil. It negotiated a treaty with Korea which contains the unique provision that " whenever the King of Chosen shall have so far modified and reformed the statutes ana judicial procedure of his kingdom that, in the judgment of the United States, they conform to the laws, of course, of justice in the United States, the right of extraterritorial jurisdiction over United States citizens in Chosen shall be abandoned." (Treaty of Mav 22, 1888, art. 4.) The treaty signed at Shanghai October 8, 1903, between the United States and China, reads in article 15 as follows : The Government of China having expressed a strong desire to reform its judicial system and to bring it into accord with that of Western nations, the United States agrees to give every assistance to such reform, and will also be prepared to relinquish extraterritorial rights when satisfied that the state of the Chinese laws, the arrangements for their administration, and other con- siderations warrant it in so doing. CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 205 The United States led the ay ay in urging the abandonment of extra- territoriality in Japan and has always been inclined to take a con- servative view of the powers conferred by the grant of extraterritorial privileges. (See question of extradition, supra.) Doubtless President Grant was not alone in holding the sentiments which he expressed while in Constantinople on his trip round the world, when he said : How should we Americans like to see the Turks and other nations having their courts, their own systems of laws, and their own judges administering the laws of the ceiurtry to which they belong in New York? The General had felt that there was an apparent injustice to Turkey. But he was careful to add that while these doubts had once troubled him, now that he had traversed the Ottoman Empire from Egypt to Constantinople he had come fully to understand why capitulations were necessary, and he entirely recognized that neither Americans nor the citizens of any other civilized power would consent to live in Turkey if they wove nut under the shelter and pro- tection of such treaties. (Edwin Pears, barrister at law. on the naturalization treaty. For. Rel. IT. S., 1887, p. 1112.) It is believed that substantially all disinterested persons Avho have examined the question have been forced to the same conclusion. * * the system of consular tribunals which have a general similarity in their main provisions, is of the highest importance, and their establishment in other than Christian countries, where our people may desire to go in pursuit of commerce, will often be essential for the protection of their persons and prop- erty. (In re Ross, 1-10 U. S.. 480.) It Avould seem that the following language of Attorney-General Cushing, contained in an opinion rendered July 14, 1855, to the Sec- retary of State, is still true, except so far as it refers to Japan : When the countries nnv Mohammedan shall be subjugated to the doctrines of the Roman law — whether by the arms of eastern or the arts of western Europe, is of secondary moment to us. provided it be done — and not until then, they can be admitted to the same reciprocal community of private rights with us which prevails in Christian Europe and in America. Until that event hap- pens, Turkey and other iloslem states in Africa or Asia may, like China and Japan, enter into the sphere of our public law in the relation of government to government, but not in the relation of government to men. That full inter- change of international right is admissible only among the nations which have unity of legal thought, in being governed by or constituted out of the once dissevered but since then partially reunited constituents of the Greco-Roman Empire. (7 Opinions Atty. Genl., 349.) WHO ENJOY EXTRATERRITORIAL RIGHTS. The general character and scope of the rights growing out of extra- territoriality has already been discussed. It remains to consider the persons who enjoy extraterritorial rights and are subject to extra- territorial authority. " It is evident, says Hall, " that the list of persons who are British subjects [in extraterritorial countries] can hardly be smaller than those elsewhere excepted, and that there may be good reasons for endeavoring to embrace a certain number of individuals who would not be regarded as British subjects in Europe or America. As a matter of fact, the claims of Great Britain in oriental states, although gradually diminishing, are still somewhat wider than those which she puts forth in the West." It is submitted, however, that with a few striking exceptions which will be noticed later, there is nothing in the fiction of extraterritoriality to vary the definition of citizenship established by. the municipal laws of any 206 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. nation. It would seem that Hinckley is more accurate when he points out that extraterritorial jurisdiction is apt to be extended beyond the strict limits of citizenship. " So far as extraterritorial privileges are involved, American nationality includes all persons, whatever their civil status, who owe allegiance to the United States either as citizens by birth or by naturalization or as native inhabi- tants of the insular possessions, or as seamen on American ships, or as assistants or guards in legations and consulates, or, to a limited extent, as employees of American citizens in oriental countries." (Hinckley, p. 78.) Proteges. — Formerly, especially in Turkey, the various powers pos- sessing extraterritoriality were accustomed to extend their protection to a large and somewhat indefinite number of so-called proteges, who placed themselves under the protection of their consulates by regis- tering therein and submitting to the consular jurisdiction. (See legal opinion of Edwin Pears, For. Eel. U. S., 1887, pp. 1109-1113; Hinckley, p. 83.) This system naturally excited objection on the part of the native governments, and has been in recent times steadily discouraged on the part of all the powers, especially by the United States and Great Britain. (See the convention limiting the lights of protection in Morocco concluded between all the great powers and Morocco in 1880.) As will be seen from the passage from Hinckley above quoted, the proteges of the American consulates are now restricted to assistants or guards in legations and embassies, or, " to a limited extent, to the employees of American citizens," and it is very doubtful whether or not the statutes of the United States authorize the assertion of crimi- nal jurisdiction over such proteges who are not American citizens. (For cases in which extraterritorial rights were claimed for drago- men attached to consulates in Turkey, see For. Eel. 1898, p. 1109: For. Eel. 1900, p. 920.) Seamen. — A class of persons not necessarily citizens of the United States, who are yet subject in all respects to the extraterritorial juris- diction of the United States and entitled to all the extraterritorial rights pertaining to American citizens, are seamen. (Hinckley, p. 87.) The law and practice of the United States and England differ as regards seamen in this respect — in England punitive jurisdiction does not go hand in hand with protective jurisdiction. England gives equal protection to seamen upon English vessels, whether or not they are British subjects, " but British courts can only exercise, crim- inal jurisdiction over British subjects and persons to whom the priv- ileges of subjects have been regularly extended. They consequently have no power to try a foreign seaman belonging to a British ship for any offense committed within or without the territorial jurisdic- tion.. He must be handed over to the consular authority of the nation of which he is a subject." (Hall, p. 142.) This divergence of views led to a diplomatic correspondence be- tween the United States and Great Britain in 1881 concerning the right to exercise jurisdiction over John Boss, a British subject who was a seaman on an American vessel, for a crime committed on the ship in the harbor of Yokohama. The State Department main- tained that jurisdiction, according to American law, inhered in the American consular court, and from this decision the English Gov- ernment did not dissent. The Eoss case finally reached the Supreme CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 207 Court of the United States in In re Boss (140 U. S., 453) . The views expressed by the Department were affirmed by the court, which quoted from the communication of the Secretary of State to the British Gov- ernment, and said : The national character of the petitioner, for all the purposes of the consular jurisdiction, was determinable by his enlistment as one of the crew of the American ship Bullion. * * * He could then insist upon treatment as an American seaman, and invoke for his protection all the power of the United States which could be called into exercise for the protection of seamen who were native born. He owes for that time to the country to which the ship on which he is serving belongs a temporary allegiance, and must be held to all its responsibilities. American nationals. — The inhabitants of our insular possessions, the Philippines and Porto Rico, appear not to be citizens in the con- stitutional sense of the word. They are, however, subjects in an international sense, and have, perhaps, not inappropriately been called American nationals. It seems clear that they are within the scope of the treaties and the acts of Congress passed in furtherance thereof, and are not only entitled to full protection, but, it would seem, are subject to criminal procedure before American extraterri- torial courts. Missionaries. — A very great deal of the diplomatic correspondence of the United States in regard to extraterritorial rights has arisen out of the denial of such rights to American missionaries in the Orient. Although many of the European nations have special relations with certain ecclesiastical organizations and act as the representative and protector of these organizations in the Orient, and even Great Britain and Germany are traditionally obligated to defend the great faiths which are so closely connected with their national history, the United States may be said to have a " really distinctive policy — that of pro- tecting American missionaries to the same degree as other American citizens." (Hinckley, p. 110; see for a general discussion of the rights of American missionaries in Turkey, by Mr. Bayard, F. R., 1897, p. 1094; by Mr. Blaine, F. R., 1891, p. 765; by Mr. Foster, F. R., 1892. p. 60*9 ; by Mr. Olney, F. R., 1895, part 2, pp. 1256, 1461. See also F. R., 1885. pp. 153, 163; F. R., 1876, p. 46; F. R., 1882, p. 137; F. R., 1888, part 1, p. 270; F. R., 1895, part 1, p. 196.) It should be noted, however, that Turkey and China, the former by the treaty of Berlin and the latter by article 29 of her treaty with the United States of 1858, and by the recent treaty of October 8, 1903, have obligated themselves not to discriminate against their own sub- jects on account of the adoption of the Christian religion, but it must not be thought that on this account extraterritorial rights, as such, extend in the slightest degree to native converts to Christianity. (See Hinckley, p. 86.) As will be noted later American missionaries con- stitute in a peculiar degree a " distinctive American community," en- joying extraterritorial rights in which American citizenship may be handed down from father to son without restriction as to those whose fathers have never resided in the United States. It follows naturally from this ruling that the issuance of passports to missionaries in ex- traterritorial countries " whose residence there was continuous and practically permanent, and who could not allege any definite inten- tion of returning to and residing in the United States," has been di- rected. (See Van Dyne's Citizenship, p. 281; Hunt's American Pass- 208 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC.. port, p. 209; Mr. Gresham to Mr. Kunyon, November 1, 1894; Mr. Everett to Mr. Marsh, February 5, 1853; 2 Whart. Int. Law, p. 260. On the general subject of missionaries and their extraterritorial rights, see Hinckley, pp. 108 to 125.) Double nationality. — The same questions of double nationality which have been discussed in the earlier part of this report also arise in connection with the doctrine of extraterritoriality. A natural-born subject of Great Britain, for example, who is also by the law of another State invested with its nationality, may be claimed by either of the two countries. In Europe no difficulty would be likely to make itself felt in a third country. Neither State would have any interest in opposing the choice of the individual ; he would obtain protection from the country of his preference. But so soon as jurisdiction is delegated by the territorial State the aspect of the ease is changed. The individual by placing himself under one jurisdiction rather than another may obtain a p?rsonal advantage, to the disadvantage of one of the two States to which he may be ascribed or to the disadvantage of persons who are its subjects. Both countries may have a strong interest in urging their claim to his allegiance. In such circumstances no legal solution of the difficulty seems possible. In third States the right to him of each country is equal to that of the other. There is no such reason on either hand for yielding as proffers itself when a claim based upon origin is met by a like claim strengthened by the presence of the individual on the territory of one of the claimants. Unless dip- lomatic arrangement be possible, there is no escape from a flat conflict of juris- diction. A similar difficulty evidently occurs when a person of double nationality is accused of crime. (Hall, p. 140.) A similar situation would arise if a naturalized citizen of America, resident in some oriental country other than the country of his ori- gin, were claimed as a citizen by the country of his origin. In the case of Great Britain, inasmuch as the spirit of the naturalization act of 1870 " obviously is that acquired nationality has a lower claim to recognition than nationality of origin," this claim would probably be conceded. (See Hall, p. 141.) In the case of the United States, how- ever, where the statute of Congress expressly directs that the same protection be given to naturalized as to native-born citizens, a flat contradiction of jurisdiction would result. Good offices toward citizens of other countries. — The consuls of the United States in extraterritorial countries, like the consuls of other countries, are frequently called on to extend their good offices by tem- porarily or permanently taking under their protection citizens of other countries. The British and American consuls in the interior of Turkey frequently exchange their good offices for the protection of missionaries, and this Government has frequently, at the request of the Government of Switzerland, directed its consular officers to 'extend their protection to citizens of that country. In general this extension ->f good offices has been assented to by Turkey, even to the extent of permitting the consuls of the nation giving protection to proceed to try citizens of another country to whom they have extended pro- tection for criminal offenses. This Government, however, has refused to exercise such jurisdiction without the express assent of the country of which the person inter- ested is a citizen, and has never, in fact, authorized such assumption of jurisdiction in a criminal case. ( See Hincklev, pp. 88 and 89 ; F. K., 1873, part 1, p. 139 ; F. B., 1902, p. 6 and p. 234 ;Moore's International Law Digest, § 290.) China appears never to have given her assent to such substituted jurisdiction. CITIZENSHIP OF THE T7NITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 209 EXTRATERRITORIAL PRIVILEGES FOR PARTICULAR PLACES. The following passage from Hall suggests a peculiar phase of extraterritoriality and states the extent and nature of the particular privileges enjoyed by England in Turkey and Persia. The same privileges are enjoyed by the United States. Similar privileges are enjoyed in other extraterritorial countries. In some countries a certain degree of protection is formally conceded to things and places as well as to persons. In tbe Ottoman Empire, and in the territories to which the capitulations extend, the local police are forbidden to enter by force a house inhabited by a British subject without giving notice to the am- bassador or consul, if either be within reach, so that an agent of the British Government may be present to see that no irregularity is committed ; where a criminal is caught flagrante delicto, or necessity of some kind interferes with previous notice, a consul must be made acquainted with the fact of arrest within four and twenty hours after its occurrence. In Persia formal authorization from the minister or consul is required. ACQUISITION OF CITIZENSHIP. The great majority of the questions relating to the acquisition of citizenship arising in extraterritorial countries naturally depend upon exactly the same principles as do the questions arising in this country and in the civilized nations abroad, and the rulings of the Department have simply followed the decisions of the courts in similar cases arising in civilized countries. For example : It has been held that imperfect or defective naturalization can no more give the rights of American citizenship, and hence of extraterritoriality, in China or Turkey, than they can confer the right to American protec- tion in France or England. (See Foreign Relations, 1887, p. 190- 210 ; 1896, p. 91, see, also, as to China and-Turkey, Foreign Eelations, 1885, pp. 849-855.) As regards one or two questions, however, in which the Depart- ment has followed the ordinary rulings, the situation in extraterri- torial countries is so different as to make the ruling worth noting. For example: the Department has held that residence in an extra- territorial country can not be counted toward the five years' residence required for naturalization, and this ruling was made, in the case of the American dragoman attached to the legation at Constantinople and therefore peculiarly within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the United States, as well as within the employ of the Government. (See Mr. Terrell to Mr. Gresham, October 14, 1893, Foreign Rela- tions, 1893, p. 692; and Mr. Gresham to Mr. Terrell, November 2, 1893, Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 701.) Again, in the same case, the Department held that the treaties and statutes conferring judicial authority upon American ministers in extraterritorial countries do not create a court competent to natural- ize according to the requirements of the naturalization laws. Section 2165 of the Revised Statutes is explicit in requiring the application for admission to citizenship to be made before a circuit or district court of the United States or a district or a supreme court of the Territories or a court of record of any of the States. Notwithstanding the judicial powers conferred on some of our ministers abroad, it is plain that they are not within any of the descriptions of courts above mentioned, nor is it possible to consider Mr. Garguilo as having been con- H. Doc. 326, 59-2 14 210 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. structively in this country during the past five years merely because he has been in the employment of this Government in Turkey during that time. The fric- tion of extraterritoriality can not be carried to this extent. (Foreign Rela- tions, 1893, p. 701.) . Marriage. — The question of the acquisition of citizenship through marriage to an American citizen presents no peculiarities growing out of the law of extraterritoriality. Eef erence may be made in this connection to the agreement between Germany and China, made in 1888, whereby the marriage of a Chinese woman to a German was declared to make the Chinese woman subject to German jurisdiction, and which, notwithstanding the statutory provision against the natu- ralization of Chinese, was said by Secretary Bayard would probably " assist in determining the status in China of the Chinese wife of an American citizen, assuming the marriage to be consensual and monog- amous." (Foreign Relations, 1888, p. 349. See, also,_ pp. 319, 347, 683; and Hinckley's American Consular Jurisdiction in the Orient, p. 80.) Such a marriage, however, it would seem, could only affect the status of the Chinese wife of an American citizen so far as to bring her within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the United States. It could not confer citizenship in the presence of Revised Statutes, sec. 1994. LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP. According to section 1999, Revised Statutes, expatriation is a natu- ral and inherent right, and whatever may have been the earlier doc- trine on the subject of indelible allegiance, there would seem to be no question at the present time that an American citizen can divest him- self of his American citizenship. It remains to notice any peculiarities affecting expatriation in extraterritorial countries. In the first place, the distinction above referred to between a country of imperfect civilization, which pos- sesses the general attributes of a state and is regarded by other nations as an international person, and a barbarous unorganized country not possessing such characteristics, must be borne in mind. Al- though it is the general rule, in view of the declared position of the United States Government, that an American citizen loses his Ameri- can citizenship upon becoming invested with the citizenship of a foreign country, it would seem that no ceremony of adoption into a barbarous tribe, and no length of residence in a barbarous state, not recognized as an international person, can serve to release an Ameri- can citizen from his responsibilities to his country, and it would seem that the mere fact that the United States may make treaties or agree- ments with such barbarous community would not necessarily indicate that such a community was a state in the sense of being able to release an American citizen from his allegiance to the United States by conferring upon him its own citizenship. Such is believed by Hall to be the correct doctrine, even under the British naturalization act of 1870, which expressly permits British subjects to assume the nationality of a foreign state. (Hall, pp. 130 and 131.) In the case of an Eastern state in which extraterritorial privi- leges are enjoyed, but which is, nevertheless, regarded as a state theoretically in the full sense of the word, naturalization either in accordance with a naturalization law, such as that of Turkey, or in CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 211 accordance with any formula deemed sufficient by the oriental state to confer its citizenship, would be doubtless held to divest an Ameri- can citizen of his nationality. (Hall, p. 125.) When, however, we consider the question of expatriation through prolonged residence abroad, a wide distinction exists between all countries in which the United States possesses extraterritorial jurisdiction, whether they be states in an international sense or not", and countries in which no such jurisdiction exists. The circumstances which work expatriation as applied to residents in countries in which no extraterritorial jurisdiction exists have been defined by Mr. Hamilton Fish, as " 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 preexisting character of citizenship." Thus, a per- son " may reside abroad for purposes of health, of education, of amusement, of business, for an indefinite period; he may acquire a commercial or civil domicile there, but if he do so sincerely and bona fide animo revertendi, and do nothing inconsistent with his preexist- ing allegiance, he will not thereby have taken any steps toward self-expatriation. But if, instead of this, he permanently withdraws himself and his property and places both where neither can be made to contribute to the national necessities, acquires a political domicile in a foreign country, and avows his purpose not to return, he has placed himself in the position where his country has the right to pre- sume that he has made his election of expatriation." But this ruling does not apply to residents in extraterritorial regions except in the case of naturalized citizens returning to the country of their origin. The important rulings of the Department on this subject grew out of the application for the registration of two children in the American consulate at Smyrna. One child was the grandchild of an American citizen, the father of the child never having resided in the United States within the meaning of section 1993; the other child was the grandchild of a naturalized Turk, his father being in like case. On March 30, 1887, the Department wrote Consul Emmet approving his action in refusing the registration of these children on the ground that they had lost all claim to American citizenship. Later, how- ever, after the consideration of the very able protest prepared by several prominent American citizens residing in Smyrna, and after a careful study of the whole question of extraterritoriality (see instruc- tion of Department to Mr. Straus, Apr. 20, 1887, Foreign Eelations, 1887, p. 1094), the Department changed its position so far as con- cerned the grandchild of the native born American citizen and arrived at the following conclusions : (1) Persons who are members in Turkey of a community of citizens of the United States of the character above described do not lose their domicile of origin, no matter how long they remain in Turkey, provided that they remain as citizens of the United States, availing themselves of the extraterritorial rights given by Turkey to such communities and not merging themselves in any way in Turkish domicile of nationality. (2) The American domicile they thus retain they impart to their descendants so long as such descendants form part of such distinctive American communities, subject to the above proviso. (3) Section 1993 of the Revised Statutes, providing that " the rights of citi- zenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States," does not apply to the descendants of citizens of the United States mem- bers of such communities. Such descendants are to be regarded, through their 212 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATBIATION, ETC. Inherited extraterritorial rights recognized by Turkey herself, as born and con- tinuing in the jurisdiction of the United States."* That this is the construction to be given to section 4125 of the Revised Statutes, coupled with our treaty of 1830 with Turkey, is fully shown by the above-mentioned instruction of April 20, 1887, to which I again refer as binding you in this relation. Not finding these conclusions sufficiently definite, the memoralists, through Consul Emmet, asked the Department for further informa- tion regarding their status. This request was made in a letter of Consul Emmet, December 14, 1899, which read in part as follows : The question which presents itself and leaves the aforesaid petitioners in doubt is whether they, as private citizens pursuing their own business and not in any particular manner subserving American interests or identified there- with, can be considered " as members of continuous communities of American nationality existing in Turkey for business or religious purposes," and there- fore entitled to American protection. ******* To designate an American community in this section one would be obliged to draw the line of demarcation around the American missionaries and stop there. They are in every sense American, by birth and feelings, habits of living, and thought, national pride in the observance of holidays, etc., whereas the balance who constitute the American colony are so intermixed with other- nationalities, by marriage and family ties, as to obliterate their American indi- viduality, until trouble obliges them to proclaim their citizenship and seek pro- tection through this consulate. To this the Department replied : To this I have now to add that the Department considers as citizens of the United States all non-Mahometans descended from citizens of the United States (not naturalized Turks), whose parents or prior ancestors settled in Turkey for religious or business purposes, and who themselves remain non- Mahometans, retain and proclaim their American nationality, and are recog- nized by Turkish authorities as citizens of the United States. It will be observed that the Department in this passage refused to extend the exception of Revised Statutes 1993. to descendants of naturalized foreigners who return to the country of their origin, although their country be one in which the United States exercises extraterritoriality. This attitude receives confirmation from the position of the De- partment in regard to the child of a native of Morocco naturalized in the United States who had returned to his native country. In this case the Department not only approved the action of Consul- General Burke in refusing to regard the child as an American citizen, but proceeded to apply to the case of the father the ordinary doctrine of expatriation as applicable to a naturalized citizen returning to the land of his nativity, and refused to make any exceptions on account of the extraterritoriality enjoyed by the United States in Morocco. Article 15 of the treaty between the United States and Morocco should, perhaps, be noted in this connection, although the Depart- ment purposely decided the case without reference to the treaty. Article 15 is as follows : Any subject of Morocco who has been naturalized in a foreign country, and who shall return to Morocco, shall after having remained for a length of time equal to that which shall have been regularly necessary for him to obtain such naturalization, choose between entire submission to the laws of the Empire and the obligation to quit Morocco, unless it shall be proved that his naturalization • A similar British statute seems to be more strictly construed. See Hall, p. 125. CITIZENSHIP OB" THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 213 in a foreign country was obtained with the consent of the Government of Morocco. Foreign naturalization heretofore acquired by subjects of Morocco according to the rules established by the laws of each country, shall be continued to thens as regards all its effects, without any restriction. See also in this connection Foreign Kelations 1887, page 1131, in which the same doctrine is again announced as regards Turkey. The result of these various cases would seem to be that while the Department recognizes an exception to the general language of sec- tion 1-993, as regards the descendents of American citizens in general, living in countries in which the United States exercises extraterri- torial powers, it refuses to extend this exception to the children of naturalized Americans returning to the country of their origin. See the concluding language of the instruction regarding passports for persons residing or sojourning abroad, dated March 27, 1899, which reads as follows : The status of American citizens resident in a semibarbarous country or ifl a country in which the United States exercises extraterritorial jurisdiction Is singular. If they were subjects of such power before they acquired citi- zenship in the United States, they are amenable, upon returning, to the same restrictions of residence as are laid down in the beginning of this instruction, and for the same reasons; but if they are not in that category, their residence may be indefinitely prolonged, since obviously they can not become subjects of the native government without grave peril to their safety. The Department's position with respect to these citizens has uniformly been to afford them the protection of a passport as long as their pursuits are legitimate and not preju- dicial to the friendly relations of this Government with the government within whose limits they are residing; and the Department has even held that per- sons who are members of a distinctly American community in Turkey and avail themselves of the extraterritorial rights given by Turkey to such com-' munities may inherit their rights as American citizens, and that section 1993 of the Revised Statutes of the United States which provides that " the rights; of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States," is not applicable, such descendents being regarded, through their inherited extraterritorial rights recognized by Turkey herself, as born and continuing in the jurisdiction of the United States. (For. Rel. 1887, 1125. )<» The restrictions in regard to the residence of a naturalized Ameri- can citizen in the country of his origin to which the Department refers in the above, quotation, as applicable alike to countries in which the United States "exercises extraterritorial jurisdiction and in which it does not, are thus explained in the same instruction of the Depart- ment : A naturalized citizen who returns to the country of his origin and there resides without any tangible manifestation of an intention to return to the United States may therefore generally be assumed to have lost the right to receive the protection of the United States. His naturalization in the United States can not be used as a cloak to protect him from obligations to the country of his origin while he performs none of the duties of citizenship to the country which naturalized him. Marriage. — In the case of an American woman who marries a for- eigner residing in extraterritorial jurisdiction, it is believed that the same rules apply as in the case of an American woman who marries a foreigner residing in the United States, at least so far as American law is concerned. There remains, of course, always a possibility of a double nationality and a conflict of authority with the nation to which the husband belongs, under certain circumstances. a See No. 172, July 30, 1901, from the consul-general at Constantinople, and No. 44, March 13, 1901, from the consul at Harput 214 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. Exhibit A. COUNTRIES IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES EXERCISES EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. {For the treaty provisions regulating extraterritoriality in the countries marked with an * see infra, Exhibit C] China.* Borneo. — A treaty was made with the Sultan of Borneo June 23, 1850, and it is still in force, although the island is now entirely included within British and Dutch protectorates. (Hinckley, 39.) * * * As to other protectorates, namely, Borneo, whose entire territory was converted into the British protectorate of North Borneo, and the Dutch protectorates of East, South, and West Borneo in 1891, and Tonga, which was made a British protectorate in 1899 and at length became essentially a British possession in 1904, the United States has taken no action whatever toward relinquishing its treaty rights of jurisdiction. But in view of the practice of European gov- ernments and of the recent suspension of jurisdiction in the leased areas of north China, it may be assumed that the United States would either retain, suspend, or relinquish jurisdiction in a protect- orate according to the extent to which the protecting power actually undertook the administration of justice in it. Another determining factor in European practice is the degree of reciprocity shown with respect to withdrawing jurisdiction in protectorates; for example, the British withdrawal of jurisdiction from Madagascar in return for French withdrawal from Zanzibar, and the British withdrawal of jurisdiction from Samoa in return for German withdrawal of it from Tonga. (Hinckley, 181, 182 ; see Tonga, infra.) Korea. — The fourth article of the American treaty contains a provision which is thought not to have been inserted in any earlier treaty with any oriental State, namely, that extraterritoriality shall be relinquished when, in the judgment of the United States, the reform of the laws and of the administration of justice in Korea justify relinquishment; a similar provision is made in the protocols appended to the British and French treaties. (Hinckley, 39.) . Maskat.— A treaty with Maskat, another Mohammedan State, was negotiated in 1833 by Edmund Roberts, a sea captain, commissioned by President Johnson. Maskat then extended from the Persian Griilf southward along the coasts of Africa, but to-day it comprises only a small area at the mouth of that gulf. (Hinckley, 20.) ! Morocco. — The protege system in Morocco was regulated by a convention signed by several powers at Madrid in 1880. In 1904 Great Britain recognized the predominating influence of France in Morocco. (Hinckley, 20.) Persia.* s IAM * Tonga.— On October 2, 1886, a treaty with the Tonga Islands was concluded. These islands became a protectorate of Great Britain in 1899, and in 1904 the native authorities transferred the legal and financial administration to the British Government. (Hinckley, 39; see Borneo, supra.) As a matter of fact, the United States never CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 215 exercised any of its jurisdictional rights under the treaty with Tonga of October 2, 1886. (See Hinckley, n. 2, p. 182.) Tripoli. — Italian influence tends to predominate in Tripoli. (See Hinckley, p. 20.) Turkey and Egypt.* . The many changes in the international relations of the oriental States with which the United States has, during the course of the past century, negotiated treaties of extraterritoriality have greatly reduced the number of those treaties and caused some of them, though remaining in force, to be modified in operation. The extraterritorial jurisdiction has been formally relinquished in Algiers and Tunis, Servia, Madagascar, and Japan, and a portion of Samoa, and im- pliedly relinquished in Eoumania; it is suspended as to certain civil cases in Egypt, and fully suspended within the areas of North China leased to European powers; it is subject in greater or less degree to modification or suspension in the protectorates of Zanzibar, Borneo, and Tonga, and in the special spheres of influence of France and Italy extending over Morocco and Tripoli; it is still exercised in Persia, Maskat, Siam, Korea, China, and Turkey ; and in Turkey and China it is frequently exercised and of great importance. (Hinck- ley, 40.) Exhibit B. COUNTRIES IN WHICH EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION ONCE POSSESSED BY THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN RELINQUISHED. Algiers. — In 1830 jurisdiction in Algiers ceased with the military occupation of that country by France, which subsequently developed into annexation. (Hinckley 20; compare Mahoney v. U. S., 10 Wall. (U.S.), 62.) Japan. — Extraterritorial privileges were secured in Japan by the treaties of June 17, 1857, and July 29, 1858. The privilege of re- vision in 1872 or later was reserved, but the extraterritorial pro- visions remained in force until July 16, 1899, when extraterritoriality was abandoned according to the provisions of the treaty of November 22, 1894. (Hinckley, 37, 38, 183, 188; see also Foster, American Diplomacy in the Orient, Boston, 1903, pp. 344 to 364.) Madagascar. — The native Government of Madagascar entered into a treaty with the United States on February 14, 1867, and made a new treaty on May 13, 1881, which defined consular judicial pre- rogatives with extraordinary detail. Since 1896 Madagascar has been a colony of Prance. (Hinckley, 38; see also Hinckley, p. 179.) Roumania. — The Roumanian treaty contains no explicit renun- ciation of extraterritoriality. It has, however, presumably been relin- quished by implication. (See Hinckley, p. 183.) Samoa. — On January 17, 1878, a treaty was made with Samoa. This treaty was negotiated at Washington and signed by the Secre- tary of State himself. The Samoan Islands were divided, however, 216 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. by a treaty between the United States, Great Britain, and Germany, December 2, 1899, under which the rights and claims of Great Britain were renounced as to the entire group of islands and the rights and claims of the United States and Germany restricted to separate groups of the islands. (Hinckley, 39.) Servia. — The Servian treaty (1881) made a qualified renunciation under which the United States retained jurisdiction, except as to real estate, in mixed cases involving other foreigners whose governments should not have renounced jurisdiction. This provision had only a temporary effect, for jurisdiction was soon relinquished by Austria, France, and Great Britain, and in 1886 Servia and Turkey entered into a convention mutually relinquishing extraterritoriality each in the territory of the other. (See Hinckley, p. 183.) Tunis. — The Tunis treaty of 1797 was nominally in force until March 15, 1904, when the United States, by special treaty, recognized the protectorate over Tunis which France had established in 1881. Zanzibar. — Having gained independence from Maskat, the rulers of the island of Zanzibar and the adjacent mainland made a treaty of extraterritoriality with the United States in 1886. Since then, excepting a few mainland ports leased to Italy, Zanzibar has become a British protectorate, and by convention of February 5, 1905, with Great Britain extraterritoriality therein has been relinquished by the United States. (Hinckley, 20.) But the convention relinquishing jurisdiction is not to go into effect until other nations shall have like- wise renounced their extraterritorial privileges. The treaty of 1886, in which extraterritorial privileges were secured, is therefore tech- nically still operative and is quoted, infra, among the treaties in force. (See Hinckley, p. 181.) Exhibit C. Treaty Provisions Granting Extraterritorial Jurisdiction to the United States, in Force January 1, 1907.° I. — Morocco. Treaty of January 25, 1787. Art. XX. If any of the citizens of the United States, or any persons under their protection, shall have any dispute with each other, the consul shall decide between the parties, and whenever the consul shall require any aid or assistance from our Government to enforce his decisions it shall be immediately granted to him. Art. XXI. If a citizen of the United States should kill or wound a Moor, or, on the contrary, if a Moor shall kill or wound a citizen of the United States, the law of the country shall take place, and equal justice shall be rendered, the consul assisting at the trial, and if any delinquent shall make his escape the consul shall not be answerable for him in any manner whatever. « The excerpts here given are taken from Hinckley's "American Consular Jurisdiction in the Orient," although the arrangement is somewhat different. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 217 II. MOEOCCO. Treaty of September 16, 1886. Art. XX. If any of the citizens of the United States, or any persons under their protection, shall have any dispute with each other, the consul shall decide between the parties, and whenever the consul shall require any aid or assistance from our Government to enforce his decisions it shall be immediately granted to him. Art. XXI. If a citizen of the United States should kill or wound a Moor, or, on the contrary, if a Moor shall kill or wound a citizen of the United States, the law of the country shall take place, and equal justice shall be rendered, the consul assisting at the trial, and if any delinquent shall make his escape the consul shall not be answerable for him in any manner whatever. III.— Tbipoli. Treaty of November It, 1796. Akt. IX. The commerce between the United States and Tripoli, the protection to be given to merchants, masters of vessels, and sea- men, the reciprocal right of establishing consuls in each country, and the privileges, immunities, and jurisdictions to be enjoyed by such consuls are declared to be on the same footing with those of the most favoured nations, respectively. IV. — Tbipoli. Treaty of June 4, 1805. Art. XVIII. If any of the citizens of the United States, or any per- sons under their protection, shall have any dispute with each other, the consul shall decide between the. parties ; and whenever the consul shall require any aid or assistance from the Government of Tripoli, to enforce his decisions, it shall immediately be granted to him. And if any dispute shall arise between any citizen of the United States and the citizens or subjects of any other nation, having a consul or agent in Tripoli, such dispute shall be settled by the consuls or agents of the respective nations. Art. XIX. If a citizen of the United States should kill or wound a Tripoline, or, on the contrary, if a Tripoline shall kill or wound a citizen of the United States, the law of the country shall take place, and equal justice shall be rendered, the consul assisting at the trial; and if any delinquent shall make his escape, the consul shall not be answerable for him in any manner whatever. V. — Turkey. Treaty of May 7, 1830. Art. IV. If litigations and disputes should arise between subjects of the Sublime Porte and citizens of the United States, the parties shall not be heard, nor shall judgment be pronounced unless the American dragoman be present. Causes in which the sum may ex- ceed five hundred piastres, shall be submitted to the Sublime Porte, 218 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. to be decided according to the laws of equity and justice. Citizens of the United States of America, quietly pursuing their commerce, and not being charged or convicted of any crime or offense, shall not be molested ; and even when they may have committed some offence they shall not be arrested and put in prison, by the local authorities, but they shall be tried by their minister or consul, and punished accord- ing to their offence, following, in this respect, the usage observed to- wards other Franks. VI.— SlAM. Treaty of March 20, X83S. Art. IX. Merchants of the United States trading in the Kingdom of Siam shall respect and follow the laws and customs of the country in all points. VII. — Siam. Treaty of May 29, 1856. Art. II. The interests of all American citizens coming to Siam shall be placed under the regulations and control .of a consul, who will be appointed to reside at Bangkok. He will himself conform to and will enforce the observance by American citizens of all the provisions of this treaty, and such of the former treaty, negotiated by Mr. Edmund Roberts in 1833, as shall still remain in operation. He shall also give effect to all rules and regulations as are now or may hereafter be enacted for the government of American citizens in Siam, the conduct of their trade, and for the prevention of violations of the laws of Siam. Any disputes arising between American citi- zens and Siamese subjects shall be heard and determined by the con- sul, in conjunction with the proper Siamese officers; and criminal offences will be punished, in the case of American offenders, by the consul, according to American laws, and in the case of Siamese offenders by their own laws, through the Siamese authorities. But the consul shall not interfere in any matters referring solely to Siamese; neither will the Siamese authorities interfere in questions which only concern the citizens of the United States. VIII. — Mascat. Treaty of September 21, 1833. Art. IX. The President of the United States may appoint consuls to reside in the ports of the Sultan where the principal commerce shall be carried on, which consuls shall be the exclusive judges of all disputes or suits wherein American citizens shall be engaged with each other. They shall have power to receive the property of any American citizen dying within the Kingdom, and to send the same to his heirs, first paying all his debts due to the subjects of the Sultan. The said consuls shall not be arrested, nor shall their property be seized, nor shall any of their household be arrested, but their persons and property and their houses shall be inviolate. Should any consul, however, commit any offence against, the laws of the Kingdom, com- plaint shall be made to the President, who will immediately displace him. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 219 IX.— China. Treaty af July S, 18U- Art. XXI. Subjects of China who may be guilty of any criminal act towards citizens of the United States shall be arrested and pun- ished by the Chinese authorities according to the laws of China; and citizens of the United States who may commit any crime in China shall be subject to be tried and punished only by the consul, or other public functionary of the United States thereto authorized, according to the laws of the United States. And in order to the pre- vention of all controversy and disaffection justice shall be equitably and impartially administered on both sides. Art. XXIV. * * * And if controversies arise between citizens of the United States and subjects of China, which can not be ami- cably settled otherwise, the same shall be examined and decided con- formably to justice and equity by the public officers of the two nations acting in conjunction. Art. XXV. All questions in regard to rights, whether of property or person, arising between citizens of the United States in China shall be subject to the jurisdiction of and regulated by the authorities of their own Government. And all controversies occurring in China between citizens of the United States and the subjects of any other government shall be regulated by the treaties existing between the United States and such governments, respectively, without interfer- ence on the part of China. Art. XXIX. * * * The merchants, seamen, and other citizens of the United States shall be under the superintendence of the appro- priate officers of their Government. If individuals of either nation commit acts of violence or disorder, use arms to the injury of others, or create disturbances endangering life the officers of the two Govern- ments will exert themselves to enforce order and to maintain the public peace by doing impartial justice in the premises. X. — China. Treaty of June 18, 1858. Art. XI. All citizens of the United States of America in China, peaceably attending to their affairs, being placed on a common foot- ing of amity and good will with the subjects of China, shall receive and enjoy for themselves and everything appertaining to them the protection of the local authorities of government, who shall defend them from all insult or injury of any sort. If their dwellings or property be threatened or attacked by mobs, incendiaries, or other violent or lawless persons, the local officers, on requisition of the con- sul, shall immediately despatch a military force to disperse the. rioters, apprehend the guilty individuals, and punish them with the utmost rigor of the law. Subjects of China guilty of any criminal act towards citizens of the United shall be punished by the Chinese authorities according to the laws of China. And citizens of the United States, either on shore or in any merchant vessel, who may insult, trouble, or wound the persons or injure the property of Chinese or commit any other improper act in China, shall be pun- 220 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. ished only by the consul or other public functionary thereto author- ized according to the laws of the United States. Arrests in order to trial may be made by either the Chinese or the United States authorities. Art. XXVII. All questions in regards to rights whether of prop- erty or person, arising between citizens of the United States in China shall be subject to the jurisdiction and regulated by the authorities of their own Government. And all controversies occurring in China between citizens of the United States and the subjects of any other Government, shall be regulated by the treaties existing between the United States and such Governments, respectively, without inter- ference on the part of China. XI.— China. Treaty of November 11, 18H0. Art. IV. When controversies arise in the Chinese Empire between citizens of the United States and subjects of His Imperial Majesty, which need to be examined and decided by the public officers of the two nations, it is agreed between the Governments of the United States and China that such cases shall be tried by the proper official of the nationality of the defendant. The properly autorized official of the plaintiff's nationality shall be freely permitted to attend the trial and shall be treated with the courtesy due to his position. He shall be granted all proper facilities for watching the proceedings in the interests of justice. If he so desires, he shall have the right to pre- sent, to examine, and to cross-examine witnesses. If he is dissatisfied with the proceedings, he shall be permitted to protest against them in detail. The law administered will be the law of the nationality of the officer trying the case. XII. — Borneo. Treaty of June 23, 1850. Art. IX. His Highness the Sultan of Borneo agrees that in all cases where a citizen of the United States shall be accused of any crime committed in any part of His Highness's dominions, the person so accused shall be exclusively tried and adjudged by the American consul, or other officer duly appointed for that purpose; and in all cases where disputes or differences may arise between American citizens, or between American citizens and the subjects of His High- ness, -or between American citizens and the citizens or subjects of any other foreign power in the dominions of the Sultan of Borneo, the American consul, or other duly appointed officer, shall have power to hear and decide the same without any interference, molestation, ot hinderance on the part of any authority of Borneo, either before, dur- ing, or after the litigation. XIII.— Persia. Treaty of December 13, 1856. Art. V. All suits and disputes arising in Persia between Persian subjects and citizens of the United States shall be carried before the Persian tribunal to which such matters are usually referred at the place where a consul or agent of the United States may reside, and CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 221 shall be discussed and decided according to equity, in the presence of an employe of the consul or agent of the United States. All suits and disputes which may arise in the Empire of Persia between citizens of the United States shall be referred entirely for trial and for adjudication to the consul or agent of the United States residing in the province wherein such suits and disputes jnay have arisen, or in the province nearest to it, who shall decide them accord- ing to the laws of the United States. All suits and disputes occurring in Persia between the citizens of the United States and the subjects of other foreign powers shall be tried and adjudicated by the intermediation of their respective con- suls or agents. In the United States Persian subjects in all disputes arising be- tween themselves or between them and citizens of the United States or foreigners shall be judged according to the rules adopted in the United States respecting the subjects of the most favored nation. Persian subjects residing in the United States, and citizens of the United States residing in Persia shall when charged with criminal offences be tried and judged in Persia and the United States in the same manner as are the subjects and citizens of the most favored nation residing in either of the above-mentioned countries. Art. VI. In case of a citizen or subject of either of the contracting parties dying within the territories of the other, his effects shall be delivered up integrally to the family or partners in business of the XIV.— KOEEA. Treaty of May 22, 1882. Art. IV. Subjects of Chosen, guilty of any criminal act towards citizens of the United States, shall be punished by the authorities of Chosen, according to the laws of Chosen ; and citizens of the United States, either on shore or in any merchant-vessel, who may insult, trouble or wound the persons, or injure the property of the people of Chosen, shall be arrested and punished only by the consul or other public functionary of the United States, thereto authorized, according to the laws of the United States. When controversies arise in the Kingdom of Chosen between citizens of the United States and subjects of His Majesty, which need to be examined and decided by the public officers of the two nations, it is agreed between the two governments of the United States and Chosen, that such cases shall be tried by the proper official of the nationality of the defendant, according to theJaws of that nation. The properly authorized official of the plaintiff's nationality shall be freely per- mitted to attend the trial, and shall be treated with the courtesy due to his position. He shall be granted all proper facilities for watching the proceedings in the interests of justice. If he so desires, he shall have the right to present, to examine and to cross-examine witnesses. If he is dissatisfied with the proceedings, he shall be permitted to pro- test against them in detail. It is however mutually agreed and understood between the high contracting powers, that whenever the King of Chosen shall have so far modified and reformed the statutes and judicial procedure of his kingdom that, in the judgment of the United States, they conform to the laws and course of justice in the United States, the right of ex- 222 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. territorial jurisdiction over United States citizens in Chosen shall be abandoned, and thereafter United States citizens, when within the limits of the Kingdom of Chosen, shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the native authorities. XV. — Zanzibab. Treaty of July 3. 1886. Art. II. The consuls of the United States appointed under the stipulations of the IX th article of the treaty above mentioned, shall in addition to the rights, powers and immunities secured by said arti- cle, enjoy all the rights, privileges, immunities and jurisdictional powers which are now or may hereafter be enjoyed by the consuls and consular agents of the most favored nations and conversely, the consuls and consular agents which His Highness the Sultan may appoint to reside in the United States shall have the treatment of agents of like grade of the most favored nation. Exhibit D. THE AMERICAN SYSTEM. [Extract from a letter of Secretary of State Frelinghuysen to Hon. William Windom, chair- man Committee on Foreign Relations, dated April 29, 1882. (47th Cong., 1st sess. Senate Mis. Doc. No. 89.)] The first act conferring such judicial powers upon the consuls of the United States was enacted August 11, 1848, and was entitled "An act to carry into effect certain provisions in the treaties between the United States and China and the Ottoman Porte, giving certain judicial powers to ministers and consuls of the United States in those countries." (9 Stat. L., 276.) The jurisdiction in regard to civil matters conferred by this act included authority to execute the provisions of the treaty, whether in regard to persons or property, and jurisdiction over matters of contract, and over all controversies between citizens of the United States and others provided for by the treaty. The jurisdiction over criminal offenses included the power to arraign and try in the manner provided in the law all citizens of the United States charged with offenses against law committed in the dominions of China (including Macao) and the Ottoman dominions. As to both classes, the jurisdiction was to be exercised in conformity with the laws of the United States, so far applicable ; and the com- mon law, so far as necessary to supply defects, was extended over all citizens of the United States in those countries; and the diplo- matic representatives of the United States were further authorized to supply by degrees and regulations any further defects. The Department of State, unwilling to assume an arbitrary and almost unlimited power of legislation, has construed the power thus conferred upon the diplomatic representatives as remedial; as it is said in the consular regulations (edition of 1881, paragraph 612) : The authority conferred by the statute is defined to be a judicial authority. The minister is required to execute the power in conformity with the laws of the United States, with authority to supply defects and deficiencies in two cases CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 223 only: (1) Where those laws are not adapted to the exercise of the judicial authority conferred by the statute; (2) where they are deficient in the provi- sions to furnish suitable remedies. In each of these contingencies the minister has authority to make regulations in order " to fwrnish suitable and appropriate remedies," and for no other purpose whatever. It is manifest that the act of 1848 was far below the necessities of an American community in a country like China. The act of June 22, 1860 (see 12 Stat. L., p. 72), undertook to remedy the defects. It extended not only the common law, but equity and admiralty, over American citizens in those countries. In other respects it im- proved the working of the law of 1848, as, for example, in section 8, by limiting the amount of a fine for contempt ; in section 9, by mak- ing a provision for rules to regulate appeals ; in section 10, by pro- viding for a permanent list of assessors, or assistants; by inserting section 18, conferring authority to settle criminal cases not of an aggravated character; in section 21, providing for the exercise in Turkey of civil jurisdiction when warranted by usages in its inter- course with other powers, and in section 22, by providing for the per- formance of a minister's duties in his absence by a consul-general or consul. It also extended the provisions of the act to Persia, Japan, the Barbary States, and Siam, and generally to all uncivilized coun- tries in which we may obtain extraterritorial rights ; made provisions for officers for the court and prisoners, and, finally, provided a mode by which marriages of Americans in those countries might be solem- nized in the presence of our consular officers and attested by them. By the act of July 1, 1870 (see 16 Stat. L., p. 183), appeals from final judgments of ministers in Japan or China were given in criminal cases, and in civil cases where the matter in dispute exceeded $2,500 exclusive of costs to the district court in California, and some further provisions were made as to officers of courts and as to prisoners. Amendments were also introduced by the act of March 3, 1873, chap. 249, 17 Stat. L., 582, and the act of June 14, 1878, chap. 193, 20 Stat. L., 131. All these provisions are contained in the sections of the Revised Statutes quoted, infra, Exhibit E. [Extract from opinion of Attorney-General Cushing, September 19, 1855, Opinions of the Attorneys-General, Vol. VII, p. 502, 503.] " In order to execute these treaties — to carry the laws of the United States into Turkey and China — to have our territorial jurisdiction follow our people and our flag into those empires — persons clothed with lawful authority are the necessary instruments. * * * "Accordingly, the statute contains the following important pro- vision : " ' That such jurisdiction in criminal and civil matters shall, in all cases, be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States, which are hereby, so far as is necessary to execute said treaty, extended over all citizens of the United States in China (and over all others to the extent that the terms of the treaty justify or require) , so far as such laws are suitable to carry said treaty into effect; but in all cases where such laws are not adapted to the object or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable reme- dies, the common law shall be extended in like manner over such 224 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. citizens and others in China ; and if defects still remain to be supplied, and neither the common law nor the statutes of the United States furnish appropriate and suitable remedies, the commissioner shall, by decrees and regulations which shall have the force of law, sup- ply such defects and deficiencies.' " The system of law is composed, therefore, of — " 1. The laws of the United States, comprehending the Constitu- tion, treaties, acts of Congress, equity and admiralty law, and the law of nations, public and private, as administered by the Supreme Court, the circuit and district courts of the United States, and, in certain cases, regulations of the Executive Departments. " 2. ' The common law.' In this respect, the statute furnishes a code of laws for the great mass of civil or municipal duties, rights, and relations of men, such as, within the United States, are of the resort of the courts of the several States. " Some general code in these respects became necessary, because the law of the United States — that is, the Federal legislation — does not include these matters, and, of itself, would be of no avail toward determining any of the questions of property, succession, the contract, which constitute the staple matter of ordinary life.- " For such of the States as were founded in whole or chief part by colonists from Great Britain and Ireland, or their descendants, the law of England, as it existed in each of those States at the time of their separation from Great Britain, with such modifications as that law had undergone by the operation of colonial adjudication, legisla- tion, or usage, became the common law of such independent State. " Meantime, in addition to many -changes, differing among them- selves, which the common law underwent in each of the colonies before it became a State, that common law has been yet more largely changed by the legislation and judicial construction of each of the States. " Hence, it was not enough to enact that the common law should intervene to supply, in China, deficiencies in the law of the United States. For the question would be sure to arise : What common law ? The common law of England at the time when the British colonies were transmuted into independent republican States? Or the com- mon law of Massachusetts? Or that of New York, or Pennsylvania, or Virginia? For all these are distinct, and in many important respects diverse, ' common law.' " To dispose of this difficulty, the statute went one step further, and enacted^ that — " 3. ' Decrees and regulations ' may be made from time to time by the commissioner, which shall have the force of law, and supply any defects or deficiencies in the common law and the laws of the United States. " This power of supplementary decree or regulation serves to provide for many cases of criminality, which neither Federal statutes nor the common law would cover. " In addition to which, it is enacted that the commissioner, with advice of the several consuls, shall prescribe the forms of processes to be issued, the mode of executing the same, the form of oaths, the costs and fees to be allowed and paid ; and generally to make all such decrees, regulations, and orders, under the act, as the exigency may CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 225 demand, which shall be ' binding and obligatory until annulled or modified by Congress.' (Sec. 5.) " In certain respects, therefore, the commissioner legislates for citi- zens of the United States in China, it being required meanwhile, that such 'regulations, orders, and decrees,' as he may make in the premises shall be transmitted ' to the President, to be laid before Congress for its revision.' (Sec. 6.)" [Extract from instructions from Secretary Fish to Mr. Bingham, January 20, 1876.] " These provisions of the statute of the United States are not under- stood to confer upon the minister any power of general legislation (as commonly understood) , but simply the power of. supplying decrees and regulations to supply any defects in the mode of exercising the jurisdiction which the statutes and treaties gave to the consular courts. With us at home our courts cannot legislate, cannot make laws, but may make regulations controlling the practice and the mode of their administering and enforcing the laws. When the statutes of the United States, the common law, and the law of equity and admiralty fail to furnish sufficient remedies for the exercise of the jurisdiction which the statute confers on the consular courts in Japan, China, &c, the minister may supply this deficiency. Such is under- stood to be the extent of legislative power, if even this can properly be called ' legislative power,' which is given to either minister or con- sul by the statute. No power is given to the minister to make a regu- lation which will establish or impair the rights existing between par- ties to create or impose new obligations on citizens. He is confined to making regulations which will enable the established courts to ad- minister justice between parties acording to existing laws, and to punish those who offend against the laws." CONSULAR REGULATIONS. 627. Power of ministers to make regulations. — The authority of a minister to make regulations having the force of law within the country to which he is accredited is a judicial authority. The min- ister is required to execute the power in conformity with the laws of the United States, with authority to supply defects and deficiencies in two cases only: (1) Where those laws are not adapted to the exercise of the judicial authority conferred by the statute; (2) where they are deficient in the provisions to furnish suitable remedies. (R. S., sec. 40S6.) In each of these contingencies the minister has authority to make regulations in order " to furnish suitable and appropriate remedies," and for no other purpose whatever. Every power named in the statute in this respect is conferred upon the minister "in order to organize and carry into effect a system of jurisprudence." The statute confers upon him no authority to make a regulation requiring citizens of the United States to register their names and no power to enforce such a regulation judicially. H. Doc. 326, 59-2 15 226 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. Exhibit E. (1) UNITED STATES STATUTES REGULATING THE EXERCISE OP EXTRA- TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION BY THE UNITED STATES. Sec. 4083. To carry into full effect the provisions of the treaties of the United States with China, Japan, Siam, Egypt, and Madagascar, respectively, the minister and the consuls of the United States, duly appointed to reside in each of those countries, shall, in addition to other powers and duties imposed upon them, respectively, by the pro- visions of such treaties, respectively, be invested with the judicial authority herein described, which shall appertain to the office 6i minister and consul, and be a part of the duties belonging thereto; wherein, and so far as, the same is allowed by treaty. Sec. 4084. The officers mentioned in the preceding section are fully empowered to arraign and try, in the manner herein provided, all citi- zens of the United States charged with offenses against law., committed in such countries, respectively, and to sentence such offenders in the manner herein authorized ; and each of them is authorized to issue all such processes as are suitable and necessary to carry this authority into execution. , Sec. 4085. Such officers are also invested with all_ the judicial authority necessary to execute the proAdsions of such treaties, respect- ively, in regard to civil rights, whether of property or person; and they shall entertain jurisdiction in matters of contract, at the port where, or nearest to which, the contract was made, or at the port at which, or nearest to which, it was to be executed, and in all other mat- ters, at the port where, or nearest to which, the cause of controversy arose, or at the port where, or nearest to which, the damage com- plained of was sustained, provided such port be one of the ports ar which the United States are represented by consuls. Such jurisdic- tion shall embrace all controversies between citizens of the United States, or others, provided for by such treaties, respectively. Sec. 4086. Jurisdiction in both criminal and civil matters shall, in all cases, be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States, which are hereby, so far as is necessary to execute such treaties, respectively, and so far as they are suitable to carry the same into effect, extended over all citizens of the United States in those countries, and over all others to the extent that the terms of the treaties, respectively, justify or require. But in all cases where such laws are not adapted to the object, or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies, the common law and the law of equity and admiralty shall be extended in like manner over such citizens and others in those countries; and if neither the common law, nor the law of equity or admiralty, nor the statutes of the United States, furnish appropriate and sufficient remedies, the ministers in those countries, respectively, shall, by decrees and regulations which shall have the force of law, supply such defects and. deficiencies. 6ec. 4087. Each of the consuls mentioned in section forty hundred *nd eighty-three, at the port for which he is appointed, is authorized upon facts within his own knowledge, or which he has good reason to believe true, or upon complaint made or information filed in writing and authenticated in such way as shall be prescribed by the minister, to issue his warrant for the arrest of any citizen of the United States CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 227 charged with committing in the country an offense against law ; and to arraign and try any such offender ; and to sentence him to punish- ment in the manner herein prescribed. Sec. 4088. The consuls and commercial agents of the United States at islands or in countries not inhabited by any civilized people, or recognized by any treaty with the United States, are authorized to try, hear, and determine all cases in regard to civil rights, whether of person or property, where the real debt or damages do not exceed the sum of one thousand dollars, exclusive of costs, and upon full hear- ing of the allegations and evidence of both parties, to give judgment according to the laws of the United States, and according to the equity and right of the matter, in the same manner as justices of the peace are now authorized and empowered where the United States have exclusive jurisdiction. They are also invested with the powers conferred by the provisions of sections forty hundred and eighty-six and forty hundred and eighty-seven for trial of offenses or misde- meanors. Sec. 4089. Any consul when sitting alone may also decide all cases in which the fine imposed does not exceed five hundred dollars, or the term of imprisonment does not exceed ninety days; but in all such cases, if the fine exceeds one hundred dollars, or the term of imprison- ment for misdemeanor exceeds sixty days, the defendants or any of them, if there be more than one, may take the case, by appeal, before the minister, if allowed jurisdiction, either upon errors of law or mat- ters of fact, under such rules as may be prescribed by the minister for the prosecution of appeals in such cases. Sec. 4090. Capital cases for murder or insurrection against the government of either of the countries hereinbefore mentioned, by citizens of the United States, or for offenses against the public peace amounting to felony under the laws of the United States, may be tried before the minister of the United States in the country whero the offense is committed if allowed jurisdiction ; and every such min- ister may issue all manner of writs, to prevent the citizens of the United States from enlisting in the military or naval service of either of the said countries, to make war upon any foreign power with whom the United States are at peace, or in the service of one portion of the people against any other portion of the same people; and he may carry out this power by a resort to such force belonging to the United States, as may at the time be within his reach. Sec. 4091. Each of the ministers mentioned in section forty hun- dred and eighty-three shall, in the country to which he is appointed, be fully authorized to hear and decide all cases, criminal and civil, which may come before him, by appeal, under the provisions of this Title, and to issue all processes necessary to execute the power con- ferred upon him; and he is fully empowered to decide finally any case upon the evidence which comes up with it, or to hear the parties further, if he thinks justice will be promoted thereby; and he may also prescribe the rules upon which new trials may be granted, either by the consuls or by himself, if asked for upon sufficient grounds. Sec. 4092. On any final judgment in a consular court of China or Japan, where the matter in dispute exceeds five hundred dollars and does not exceed two thousand five hundred dollars, exclusive of costs, an appeal shall be allowed to the minister in such country, as the case 228 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. may be. But the appellant shall comply with the conditions estab- lished by general regulations. And the ministers are hereby author- ized and required to receive, hear, and determine such appeals. Sec. 4093. On any final judgment in any consular court of China or Japan, where the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars, an appeal shall be allowed to the circuit court for the district of California, and upon such appeal a transcript of the libel, bill, answer, depositions, and all other proceedings in the cause shall be transmitted to the circuit court, and no new evidence shall be received on the hearing of the appeal ; and the appeal shall be subject to the rules, regulations, and restrictions prescribed in law for writs of error from district courts to circuit courts. Sec. 4094. On any final judgment of the minister to China, or to Japan, given in the exercise of original jurisdiction, where the mat- ter in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds two thousand five hundred dollars, an appeal shall be allowed to the circuit court, as provided in- the preceding section. Sec. 4095. When any final judgment of the minister to China, or to Japan, is given in the exercise of original or of appellate criminal jurisdiction, the person- charged with the crime or offense, if he con- siders the judgment erroneous in point of law, may appeal therefrom to the circuit court for the district of California; but such appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceedings, unless the minister certi- fies that there is probable cause to grant the same, when the stay shall be such as the interests of justice may require. Sec. 4096. The circuit court for the district of California is author- ized and required to receive, hear, and determine the appeals provided for in this title, and its decisions shall be final. Sec. 4097. In all cases, criminal and civil, the evidence shall be taken down in writing in open court, under such regulations as may be made for that purpose; and all objections to the competency or character of testimony shall be noted, with the ruling in all such cases, and the evidence shall be part of the case. Sec. 4098. It shall be the duty of the ministers and the consuls in the countries mentioned in section forty hundred and eighty -three to encourage the settlement of controversies of a civil character, by mutual agreement, or to submit them to the decision of referees agreed upon by the parties ; and the minister in each country shall prepare a form of submission for such cases, to be signed by the parties and acknowledged before the consul. When parties have so agreed to refer, the referees may, after suitable notice of the time, and place of meeting for the trial, proceed to hear the case, and a majority of them shall have power to decide the matter. If either party refuses or neglects to appear, the referees may proceed ex parte. After hearing any case such referees may deliver their award, sealed, to the consul, who, in court, shall open the same; and if he accepts it, he shall indorse the fact, and judgment shall be rendered thereon, and execution issue in compliance with the terms thereof. The parties, however, may always settle the same before return thereof is made to the consul. Sec. 4099. In all criminal cases which are not of a heinous char- acter, it shall be lawful for the* parties aggrieved or concerned therein, with the assent of the minister in the country, or consul, to adjust and CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 229 settle the same among themselves, upon pecuniary or other con- siderations. Sec. 4100. The ministers and consuls shall be fully authorized to call upon the local authorities to sustain and support them in the ex- ecution of the powers confided to them by treaty, and on their part to do and perform whatever is necessary to carry the provisions of the treaties into full effect, so far as they are to be executed in the countries, respectively. Sec. 4101. In all cases, except as herein otherwise provided, the punishment of crime provided for by this Title shall be by fine or imprisonment, or both, at the discretion of the officer who decides the case, but subject to the regulations -herein contained, and such as may hereafter be made. It shall, however, be the duty of such officer to award punishment according to the magnitude and aggravation of the offense. Every person who refuses or neglects to comply with the sentence passed upon him shall stand committed until he does comply, or is discharged by order of the consul, with the consent of the minister in the country. Sec. 4102. Insurrection or rebellion against the government of either of those countries, with intent to subvert the same, and murder, shall be capital offenses, punishable with death ; but no person shall be convicted of either of those crimes unless the consul and his asso- ciates in the trial all concur in opinion and the minister also ap- proves of the conviction. But it shall be lawful to convict one put upon trial for either of these crimes of a less offense of a similar character, if the evidence justifies it, and to punish, as for other offenses, by fine or imprisonment, or both. Sec. 4103. Whenever any person is convicted of either of the crimes punishable with death, in either of those countries, it shall be the duty of the minister to issue his warrant for the execution of the convict, appointing the time, place, and manner ; but if the min- ister is satisfied that the ends of public justice demand it he may from time to time postpone such execution ; and if he finds mitigating circumstances which authorize it, he may submit the case to the President for pardon. Sec. 4104. No fine imposed by a consul for a contempt committed in presence of the court, or for failing to obey a summons from the same, shall exceed fifty dollars; nor shall the imprisonment exceed twenty-four hours for the same contempt. Sec. 4105. Any consul, when sitting alone for the trial of offenses or misdemeanors, shall decide finally all cases where the fine imposed does not exceed one hundred dollars, or the term of imprisonment does not exceed sixty days. Sec. 4106. Whenever, in any case, the consul is of opinion that, by reason of the legal questions which may arise therein, assistance will be useful to him, or whenever he is of opinion that severer punish- ments than those specified in the preceding sections will be required, he shall summon, to sit with him on the trial, one or more citizens of the United" States, not exceeding four, and in capital cases not less than four, who shall be taken by lot from a list which had previously been submitted to and approved by the minister, and shall be persons of good repute and competent for the duty. Every such associate shall enter upon the record his judgment and opinion, and shall sign the same; but the consul shall give judgment in the case. If the 230 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. consul and his associates concur in opinion, the decision shall, in all cases, except of capital offenses and except as provided in the preced- ing section, be final. If any of the associates differ in opinion from the consul, the case, without further proceedings, together with the evidence and opinions, shall be referred to the minister for his ad- judication, either by entering up judgment therein, or by remitting the same to the consul with instructions how to proceed therewith. Sec. 4107. Each of the consuls mentioned in section four thousand and eighty-three shall have, at the port for which he is appointed, jurisdiction as herein provided, in all civil cases arising under such treaties, respectively, wherein the damages demanded do not exceed the sum of five hundred dollars; and, if he sees fit to decide the same without aid, his decision thereon shall be final. But whenever he is of opinion that any such case involves legal perplexities, and that assistance will be useful to him, or whenever the damages demanded exceed five hundred dollars, he shall summon, to sit with him on the hearing of the case, not less than two nor more than three citizens of the United States, if such are residing at the port, who shall be taken from a list which had previously been submitted to and approved by the minister, and shall be of good repute and competent for the duty. Every such associate shall note upon the record his opinion, and also, in case he dissents from the consul, such reasons therefor as he thinks proper to assign ; but the consul shall give judgment in the case. If the consul and his associates concur in opinion, the judgment shall be final. If any of the associates differ in opinion from the consul, either party may appeal to the minister, under such regulations as may exist; but if no appeal is lawfully claimed, the decision of the consul shall be final. Sec. 4108. The jurisdiction allowed by treaty to the ministers, re- spectively, in the countries named in section four thousand and eighty-three shall be exercised by them in those countries, respec- tively, wherever they may be. Sec. 4109. The jurisdiction of such ministers in all matters of civil redress, or of crimes, except in capital cases for murder or insurrection against, the governments of such countries, respectively, or for of- fenses against the public peace amounting to felony under the laws of the United States, shall be appellate only: Provided, That in cases where a consular officer is interested, either as party or witness, such minister shall have original jurisdiction. Sec. 4110. All such officers shall be responsible for their conduct to the United States, and to the laws thereof, not only as diplomatic or consular officers, but as judicial officers, when they perform judicial duties, and shall be held liable for all negligences and misconduct as public officers. Sec. 4111. The President is authorized to appoint marshals for such of the consular courts in those countries as he may think proper, not to exceed seven in number, namely : One in Japan, four in China, one in Siam, and one in Turkey, each of whom shall receive a salary of one thousand dollars a year, in addition to the fees allowed by the regulations of the ministers, respectively, in those countries. Sec. 4112. It shall be the duty of the marshals, respectively, to exe- cute all process issued by the minister of the United States in those countries, respectively, or by the consul at the port at which they reside, and to make due return thereof to the officer by whom it was CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 231 isued, and to conform in all respects to the regulations prescribed by the ministers, respectively, in regard to their duties. Sec. 4113. Each marshal, before entering unpon the duties of his office, shall give bond for the faithful performance thereof in a penal sum not to exceed ten thousand dollars, with two sureties to be approved by the Secretary of State. Such bond shall be transmitted to the Secretarv of the Treasury, and a certified copy thereof be lodged in the office of the minister. Sec. 4114. Whenever any person desires to bring suit upon the, bond of any such marshal, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury, or of the minister having custody of a copy of the same, to give to the person so applying a certified copy thereof, upon which suit may be brought and prosecuted with the same effect as could be done upon the original: Provided, The Secretary of the Treasury, or the minister to whom the application is made, is satisfied that there is probable cause of action against the marshal. Sec. 4115. Upon a plea of non est factum, verified upon oath, or any other good cause shown, the court or the consul or minister trying the cause may require the original bond of the marshal in those coun- tries to be produced ; and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to forward the original bond to the court, or consul, or min- ister requiring the same. Sec. 4116. All rules, orders, writs, and processes of every kind which are intended to operate or be enforced against any of the mar- shals, in any of the countries named in this Title, shall be directed to and executed by such persons as may be appointed for that purpose by the minister or consul issuing the same. Sec. 411-7. In order to organize and carry into effect the system of jurisprudence demanded by such treaties, respectively, the ministers, with the advice of the several consuls in each of the countries, respec- tively, or of so many of them as can be conveniently assembled, shall prescribe the forms of all processes to be issued by any of the consuls ; the mode of executing and the time of returning the same; the manner in which trials shall be conducted, and how the records thereof shall be kept; the form of oaths for Christian witnesses, and the mode of examining all other witnesses; the costs to be allowed to the prevail- ing party, and the fees to be paid for judicial services; the manner in which all officers and agents to execute process, and to carry this Title into effect, shall be appointed and compensated; the form of bail bonds, and the security which shall be required of the party who ap- peals from the decision of a consul; and shall make all such further decrees and regulations from time to time, under the provisions of. this Title, as the exigency may demand. Sec. 4118. All such regulations, decrees, and orders, shall be plainly drawn up in writing, and submitted, as hereinbefore provided, for the advice of the consuls, or as many of them as can be consulted with- out prejudicial delay or inconvenience, and such consul shall signify his assent or dissent in writing, with his name subscribed thereto. After taking such advice, and considering the same, the minister in each of those countries may, nevertheless, by causing the decree, order, or regulation to be published with his signature thereto, and the opinions of his advisers inscribed thereon, make it binding and obliga- tory, until annulled or modified by Congress ; and it shall take effect from the publication or any subsequent day thereto named in the act. 232 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. Sec. 4119. All such regulations, orders, and decrees shall, as speedily as may be after publication, be transmitted by the ministers, with the opinions of their advisers, as drawn up by them severally, to the Sec- retary of State, to be laid before Congress for revision. Sec. 4120. It shall be the duty of the minister in each of those countries to establish a tariff of fees for judicial services, which shall be paid by such parties, and to such persons, as the minister shall direct; and the proceeds shall, as far as is necessary, _ be applied to defray the expenses incident to the execution of this Title ; and regu- lar accounts, both of receipts and expenditures, shall be kept by the minister and consuls and transmitted annually to the Secretary of State. Sec. 4121. The President, when provision is not otherwise made, is authorized to allow, in the adjustment of the accounts of each of the ministers or consuls, the actual expenses of the rent of suitable buildings or parts of buildings to be used as prisons for American convicts in those countries, not to exceed in any case the rate of six hundred dollars a year; and also the wages of the keepers of the same, and for the care of offenders, not to exceed, in any case, the sum of eight hundred dollars per annum. But no more than one prison shall be hired in Japan, four in China, one in Turkey, and one in Siam, at such port or ports as the minister, with the sanction of the President, may designate, and the entire expense of prison and prison keepers at the consulate of Bangkok, in Siam, shall not exceed the sum of one thousand dollars a year. Sec. 4122. The President is authorized to allow, in the adjustment of the accounts of the consul-general at Shanghai, the actual expense of the rent of a suitable building, to be used as a prison for American convicts in China, not to exceed one thousand five hundred dollars a year ; and also the wages of the keepers of the same, and for the care of offenders, not to exceed five thousand dollars a year ; and to allow, in the adjustment of the accounts of the consuls at other ports in China, the actual expense of the hire of constables and the care of offenders, not to exceed in all five thousand dollars a year. Sec. 4123. The President is. hereby authorized to allow, in the adjustment of the accounts of the consul at Kanagawa, the actual expense of the rent of a suitable building, to be used as a prison for American convicts in Japan, and not to exceed seven hundred and fifty dollars a year; and also the wages of the keepers of the same, and for the care of offenders, not to exceed two thousand five hun- dred dollars a year; and to allow in the adjustment of the accounts of the consuls at other ports in Japan the actual expense of the hire of constables and the care of offenders, not to exceed in all two thou- sand five hundred dollars a year. Sec. 4124. The Secretary of State, through the minister resident at Japan, is authorized to rent, furnish, and keep suitable buildings, with grounds appurtenant, in Jeddo, or such other place as he may designate, for a court-house and jail, at an annual cost not exceeding five thousand dollars: Provided, That the period for which the buildings shall be rented shall be for two years, with renewals for two years, as the Secretary of State may determine. Sec. 4125. The provisions of this Title, so far as the same relate to crimes and offenses committed by citizens of the United States, shall extend to Turkey, under the treaty with the Sublime Porte of May CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 233 seventh, eighteen hundred and thirty, and shall be executed in the Ottoman dominions in conformity with the provisions of the treaty, and of this Title, by the minister and the consuls appointed to reside therein, who are hereby ex officio vested with the powers herein con- ferred upon the ministers and consuls in China, for the purposes above expressed, so far as regards the punishment of crime, and also for the exercise of jurisdiction in civil cases wherein the same is per- mitted by the laws of Turkey, or its usages in its intercourse with the Franks, or other foreign Christian nations. Sec. 4126. The provisions of this Title shall extend to Persia, in respect to all suits and disputes which may arise between citizens of the United States therein ; and the minister and consuls who may be appointed to reside in Persia are hereby invested, in relation to such suits- and disputes, with such powers as are by this Title conferred upon the ministers and consuls in China. All suits and disputes aris- ing in Persia between Persian subjects, and citizens of the United States shall be carried before the Persian tribunal to which such matters are usually referred, at the place where a consul or agent of the United States may reside, and shall be discussed and decided according to equity, in the presence of an employe of the consul or agent of the United States ; and it shall be the duty of the consular officer to attend the trial in person, and see that justice is admin- istered. All suits and disputes occurring in Persia between the citi- zens of the United States and the subjects of other foreign powers, shall be tried and adjudicated by the intermediation of their respec- tive ministers or consuls, in accordance with such regulations as shall be mutually agreed upon by the minister of the United States for the time being, and the ministers of such foreign powers, respectively, which regulations shall from time to time be submitted to the Secre- tary of State. Sec. 4127. The provisions of this Title, so far as the same are in conformity with the stipulations in the existing treaties between the United States and Tripoli, Tunis, Morocco, and Muscat, respectively, shall extend to those countries, and shall.be executed in conformity with the provisions of the treaties and of the provisions of this Title, by the consuls appointed by the United States to reside therein, who are hereby ex officio invested with the powers herein delegated to the ministers and consuls of the United States appointed to reside in the countries named in section forty hundred and eighty-three, so far as the same can be exercised under the provisions of treaties between the United States and the several countries mentioned in this section, and in accordance with the usages of the countries in their intercourse with the Franks or other foreign Christian nations. Sec. 4128. If at any time there be no minister in either of the countries hereinbefore mentioned, the judicial duties which are im- posed by this Title upon the minister shall devolve upon the Secre- tary of State, who is authorized and required to discharge the same. Sec. 4129. The provisions of this Title relating to the jurisdiction of consular and diplomatic officers over civil and criminal cases in the countries therein named, shall extend to any country of like char- acter with which the United States may hereafter enter into treaty relations. Sec. 4130. The word " minister," when used in this Title shall be understood to mean the person invested with, and exercising, the 234 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. •principal diplomatic functions. The word " consul " shall be under- stood to mean any person invested by the United States with, and exercising, the functions of consul-general, vice-consul-general, consul or vice-consul. (2) AN ACT CREATING A UNITED STATES COURT FOR CHINA AND PRESCRIBING THE JURISDICTION THEREOF. Be it enacted by\ the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That a court is hereby established, to be called the United States court for China, which shall have exclusive jurisdiction in all cases and judicial pro- ceedings whereof jurisdiction may now be exercised by United States consuls and ministers by law and by virtue of treaties between the United States and China, except in so far as the said jurisdiction is qualified by section two of .this Act. The said court shall hold ses- sions at Shanghai, China, and shall also hold sessions at the cities of Canton, Tientsin, and Hankau at stated periods, the dates of such ses- sions at each city to be announced in such manner as the court shall direct, and a session of the court shall be held in each of these cities at least once annually. It shall be within the power of the judge, upon due notice to the parties in litigation, to open and hold court for the hearing of a special cause at any place permitted by the trea- ties, and where there is a United States consulate, when, in his judg- ment, it shall he required by the convenience of witnesses or by some Bublic interest. The place of sitting of the court shall be in the nited States consulate at each of the cities, respectively. That the seal of the said United States court for China shall be the arms of the United States, engraved on a circular piece of steel of the size of a half dollar, with these words on the margin, " The Seal of the United States Court for China." The seal of said court shall be provided at the expense of the United States. All writs and processes issuing from the said court, and all tran- scripts, records, copies, jurats, acknowledgments, and other papers requiring certification or to be under seal, may be authenticated by said seal, and shall be signed by the clerk of said court. AH processes issued from the said court shall bear test from the day of such issue. Sec 2. The consuls of the United States in the cities of China to which they are respectively accredited shall have the same jurisdiction as they now possess in civil cases where the sum or value of the prop- erty involved in the controversy does not exceed five hundred dollars United States money, and in criminal cases where the punishment for the offense charged can not exceed by law one hundred dollars fine or sixty days' imprisonment, or both, and shall have power to arrest, examine, and discharge accused persons or commit them to the said court. From all final judgments of the consular court either party shall have the right of appeal to the United States court for China : Provided, also, That appeal may be taken to the United States court for China from any final judgment of the consular courts of the United States in Korea so long as the rights of extraterritoriality shall obtain in favor of the United States. The said United States court for China shall have and exercise supervisory control over the CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 235 discharge by consuls and vice-consuls of the duties prescribed bv the laws of the United States relating to the estates of decedents in China. Within sixty days after the death in China of any citizen of the United States, or any citizen of any territory belonging to the United States, the consul or vice-consul whose duty it becomes to take posses- sion of the effects of such deceased person under the laws of the United States shall file with the clerk of said court a sworn inventory of such effects, and shall as additional effects come from time to time into his possession immediately file a supplemental inventory or inventories of the same. He shall also file with the clerk of said court within said sixty days a schedule, under oath, of the debts of said decedent, so far as known, and a schedule or statement of all additional debts there- after discovered. Such consul or vice-consul shall pay no claims against the estate without the written approval of the judge of said court, nor shall he make sale of any of the assets of said estate with- out first reporting the same to said judge and obtaining a written ap- proval of said sale, and he shall likewise within ten days after any such sale report the fact of such sale to said court, and the amount derived therefrom. The said judge shall have power to require at any time reports from consuls or vice-consuls in respect of all their acts and doings relating to the estate of any such deceased person. The said court shall have power to require, where it may be necessary, a special bond for the faithful performance of his duty to be given by any consul or vice-consul into whose possession the estate of any such deceased citizen shall have come, in such amount and with such sure- ties as may be deemed necessary, and for failure to give such bond when required, or for failure to properly perform his duties in the premises, the court may appoint some other person to take charge of said estate, such person having first given bond as aforesaid. A record shall be kept by the clerk of said court of all proceedings in respect of any such estate under the provisions hereof. Sec. 3. That appeals shall lie from all final judgments or decrees of said court to the United States circuit court of appeals of the ninth judicial circuit, and thence appeals and writs of error may be taken from the judgments or decrees of the said circuit court of appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States in the same class of cases as those in which appeals and writs of error are permitted to judgments of said court of appeals in cases coming from district and circuit courts of the United States. Said appeals or writs of error shall be regulated by the procedure governing appeals within the United' States from the district courts to the circuit courts of appeal, and from the circuit courts of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, respectively, so far as the same shall be applicable; and said courts are hereby empowered to hear and determine appeals and writs of error so taken. Sec. 4. The jurisdiction of said United States court, both original and on appeal, in civil and criminal matters, and also the jurisdiction of the consular courts in China, shall in all cases be exercised in con- formity with said treaties and the laws of the United States now in force in reference to the American consular courts in China, and all judgments and decisions of said consular courts, and all decisions, judgments, and decrees of said United States court, shall be enforced in accordance with said treaties and laws. But in all such cases when 236 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. such laws are deficient in the provisions necessary to give jurisdiction or to furnish suitable remedies, the common law and the law as estab- lished by the decisions of the courts of the United States shall be applied by said court in its decisions and shall govern the same, sub- ject to the terms of any treaties between the United States and China. Sec. 5. That the procedure of the said court shall be in accordance, so far as practicable, with the existing procedure prescribed for con- sular courts in China in accordance with the Kevised Statutes of the United States : Provided, however, That the judge of the said United States court for China shall have authority from time to time to mod- ify and supplement said rules of procedure. The provisions of sec- tions forty-one hundred and six and forty-one hundred and seven of the Kevised Statutes of the United States allowing consuls in certain cases to summon associates shall have no application to said court. Sec. 6. There shall be a district attorney, a marshal, and a clerk of said court, with authority possessed by the corresponding officers of the district courts in the United States as far as may be consistent with the conditions of the laws of the United States and said treaties. The judge of said court and the district attorney, who shall be law- yers of good standing and experience, marshal, and clerk shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and shall receive as salary, respectively, the sums of eight thousand dollars per annum for said judge, four thousand dollars per annum for said district attorney, three thousand dollars per annum for said marshal, and three thousand dollars per annum for said clerk. The judge of the said court and the district attorneys shall, when the sessions of the court are held at other cities than Shanghai, receive in addition to their salaries their necessary expenses during such ses- sions, not to exceed ten dollars per day for the judge and five dollars per day for the district attorney. Sec. 7. The tenure of office of the judge of said court shall be ten years, unless sooner removed by the President for cause; the tenure of office of the other officials of the court shall be at the pleasure of the President. Sec. 8. The marshal and the clerk of said court shall be required to furnish bond for the faithful performance of their duties, in sums and with sureties to be fixed and approved by the judge of the court. They shall each appoint, with the written approval of said judge, deputies at Canton and Tientsin, who shall also be required to furnish bonds for the faithful performance of their duties, which bonds shall be subject, both as to form and sufficiency of the sureties, to the approval of the said judge. Such deputies shall receive compensa- tion at the rate of five dollars for each day the sessions of the court are held at their respective cities. The office of marshal in China now existing in pursuance of section forty-one hundred and eleven of the Kevised Statutes is hereby abolished. Sec. 9. The tariff of fees of said officers of the court shall be the same as the tariff already fixed for the consular courts in China, sub- ject to amendment from time to time by order of the President, and all fees taxed and received shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States. Approved, June 30, 1906. [U S. Stat. L., 1905-1906, p. 814.] CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 237 Exhibit F. Consular Court Regulation s. a china. J. W. Davis. Jan. 2, 1849; Sept. 9, 1850. S. Ex. Doc. 72, 31st Cong., 1st sess., p. 8-19. Procedure and appointment of clerks and marshals of consular courts, fees and forms. P. Parker. Mar. 10, 1851; Mar. 1, 1852. S. Ex. Doc. 43, 32d Cong.,- 1st sess., p. 2-3. Control of seamen on shore leave, employ- ment of Chinese, and trading with Chinese. R.M. McLane. Dec. 5, 1854; Feb. 25, 1856. H. Ex. Doc. 32, 34th Cong., 1st sess., p. 3-4. Neutral conduct of individiuals. (Pub- lished at the time of the Taiping rebellion.) R. M. McLane. Aug. 25, 1854; July 15, 1856. H. Ex. Doc. 125, 34th Cong., 1st. sess., p. 5-11. Collection of debts and procedure. R. M. McLane. Oct. 2, 1854 ; July 15 1856. H. Ex. Doc. 125, 34th Cong, 1st sess., p. 7-15. Collection of debts and procedure. P. Parker. Mar. 8, 1856; Dec. 12, 1856. H. Ex. Doc. 11, 34th Cong., 3d sess., p. 7-8. Exercise of judicial functions by vice-consuls and acting consuls. P. Parker. Mar. 4, 1857 ; Dec. 10, 1857. H. Ex. Doc. 9, 35th, Cong., 1st sess., p. 2-3. Authority to hold court on board ship in the five ports during the hostilities between England and France, and China. W. B. Reed- Feb. 27, 1858 ; Dec. 27, 1858. S. Ex. Doc. 11, 35th Cong., 2d sess., p. 1-2. Assignments for the benefit of creditors. S. W. Williams. June 12, 1858; Jan. 26, 1859. S. Ex. Doc. 34, 40th Cong., 3d sess., p. 1-10. Prohibition to navigate the Straw- shoe channel of the Yangtse River. W. B. Reed. Nov. 9, 1858; Feb. 6, 1860. S. Ex. Doc. 7, 36th Cong., 1st sess., p. 1-2. Court fees. A. Burlingame. Apr. 22, 1864; Dec. 4, 1865. H. Ex. Doc. 1, 39th Cong., 1st sess., pt. 2, p. 414-5. Registration. A. Burlingame. Apr. 23, 1864; Dec. 4, 1865. H. Ex. Doc. 1, 39th Cong, 1st sess., pt. 2, p. 415-21. Procedure and general, annulling earlier decrees inconsistent therewith. J. B. Angell. May 26, 1881 ; Mar. 22, 1882. H. Ex. Doc. 213, 47th Cong., 1st sess., p. 1-3. Summons to absentee defendants in civil suits. C. Denby. Date. of promulgation not given ; Jan. 14, 1889. S. Ex. Doc. 65, 50th Cong., 2d sess., p. 1-4. Court fees. C. Denby. Aug. 1, 1888; Jan. 14, 1889. S. Ex. Doc. 65, 50th Cong, 2d sess., p. 4-6. Permitting judgments by confession and prescribing forms for the same. C. Denby. Sept. 15, 1897; Dec. 15, 1897. S. Ex. Doc. 32, 55th Cong., 2d sess. Arrests and rendition of offenders. a The second column gives, first, the date of promulgation ; second, the date of submitting the regulations to Congress. See supra, p. 43-5, 55-4. There appear to have been no regulations for other countries excepting Japan, which were as follows : C. B. De Long. Nov. 16, 1870 ; Jan. 27, 1871. S. Ex. Doc. 25, 41st Cong., 3d sess., p. 1-39. Procedure. J. A. Bingham. Jan. 27, 1881; Dec. 6, 1881. H. Ex. Doc. 1, 47th Cong., 1st sess., p. 690-1. Criminal penalties. The regulations for Japan ceased to be of force July 17, 1899. See supra, p. 183-8. 238 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. KOREA. A. Heard. Mar. 31, 1892; May 25, 1892. S. Ex. Doc. 104, 52d Cong., 1st sess., p. 2-31. Procedure and general. TURKEY. E. J. Morris. Dec. 18, 1862; Jan. 23, 1863. S. Ex. Doc. 25, 37th Cong., 3d sess., p. 3-17. Procedure and general. Exhibit G. 1. Consular Court Regulations for China, General, 1864. i. ordinary civil proceedings. 1. Civil proceedings between American citizens miist commence by written petition verified by oath before the consul. 2. Ordinary personal civil actions are of three classes, viz: Con : tract, comprising all cases of contract or debt ; wrong, when damages are claimed for a wrong ; replevin, when possession or a specific article is claimed. 3. In contract, the petition must aver that payment, or a perform- ance of the conditions' of contract, has been demanded and withheld; and, in replevin, that the articles to be replevied have been demanded. 4. The petitioner shall be required to deposit a reasonable sum to defray the probable expenses of court and defendant's costs; subse- quent deposits may be required if found necessary. 5. Upon deposit of the money, the consul shall order notice on the petition, in writing, directing defendant to appear before the court at a given day and hour, to file his written answer on oath. 6. Notice must be served on each defendant at least five days before return day, by delivery of an attested copy of the petition and order, and of any accompanying account or paper. 7. Personal service should always be required when practicable. 8. On proof of due notice, judgment by default shall be procured against any defendant failing to appear and file his answer as re- quired ; but the default may be taken off for good cause within one day after, exclusive of Sunday. 9. But in actions of wrong, and all others where the damages are in their nature unliquidated and indefinite, so that they cannot be calculated with precision from the statement of the petition, the amount of the judgment shall be ascertained by evidence, notwith- standing the default. 10. If defendant appears and answers, the consul, having both parties before him, shall, before proceeding further, encourage a settlement by mutual agreement, or by submission of the case to referees agreed on by the parties, a majority of whom shall decide it. 11. Parties should, at the trial, be confined as closely as may be to the averments and denials of the statement and answer, which shall not be altered after filing, except by leave granted in open court. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 239 12. On application of either party and advance of the fees, the consul shall compel the attendance of any witness within his jurisdic- tion before himself, referees, or commissioners. 13. Each party is entitled and may be required to testify. 14. Judgment may be given summarily against either party failing to obey any order or decree of the consul. 15. For sufficient cause and on sufficient security the consul, on filing a petition, may grant a process of attachment of any defendant's property to a sufficient amount, or of arrest of any defendant not a married woman, nor in the service of the United States under com- mission from the President. 16. Defendant may at any time have the attachment dissolved by depositing siich sums, or given such security as the consul may require. 17. Perishable "property, or such as is liable to serious depreciation under attachment, may, on petition of either party, be sold by the consul's order, and its proceeds deposited in the consulate. 18. Any defendant arrested or imprisoned on civil petition shall be released on tender of a sufficient bond, deposit of a sufficient sum, or assignment of sufficient property. 19. Any person under civil arrest or imprisonment may have his creditor cited before the consul to hear a disclosure of the prisoner's affairs under oath, and to question thereon; and if the consul shall be satisfied of its truth and thoroughness, and of the honesty of the debtor's conduct towards the creditor, he shall forever discharge him from arrest upon that debt ; provided that the prisoner shall offer to transfer and secure to his creditor the property disclosed, or sufficient to pay the debt at the consul's valuation. 20. The creditor must advance to the jailer his fees and payment for his prisoner's board until the ensuing Monday, and afterwards weekly, or the debtor will be discharged from imprisonment and future arrest. 21. On the second day after judgment (exclusive of Sunday), execution may issue, enforcing the same, with interest at 12 per cent a year against the property and person of the debtor, returnable in thirty days, and renewable. 22. Sufficient property to satisfy the execution and all expenses may be seized and sold at public auction by the officer after due notice. 23. Property attached on petition, and not advertised for sale within ten days after final judgment, shall be returned to the defendant. 24. When final judgment is given in favor of defendant, his person and property are at once freed from imprisonment or attachment, and all security given by him discharged. And the consul may, at his discretion, award him compensation for any damage necessarily and directly sustained by reason of such attachment, arrest or imprison- ment. 25. In actions of contract, defendant may offset petitioner's claim by a counter claim, filing his own claim, under oath, with his answer. Petitioner shall be notified to file his answer seasonably, on oath, and the two claims shall then be tried together, and but one judgment given for the difference, if any be proved in favor of either party, otherwise for defendant's costs. 26. Except as hereinafter provided, the party finally prevailing recovers costs, to be taxed by him and revised by the consul. 240 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 27. In contract, the consul may order defendant's property or credits in a third party's hands, to be attached on the petition by serving him with due notice as trustee, provided petitioner secures trustee his costs by adequate special deposit. 28. If adjudged trustee, the third party may retain his costs from the amount for which he is adjudged trustee, if sufficient; otherwise the balance of trustee's costs must be paid out of petitioner's special deposit, as must the whole of his costs if not adjudged trustee. 29. The amount for which a trustee is charged must be inserted in the execution, and demanded of him by the officer within ten days after judgment, or all claim on him ceases. Process against property or person of the trustee may issue ten days after demand. 30. If petitioner recovers judgment for less than ten dollars, or if less than ten dollars of defendant's property or credits is proved in the third party's hands, in either case the third party must be dis- charged with costs against petitioner. §1. Before granting a writ of replevin, the consul shall require petitioner to file a sufficient bond, with two responsible sureties, for double the value of the property to be replevied, one an American citizen ; or petitioner may deposit the required amount. II. TENDER, ETC. 32. Before a creditor files his petition in contract, his debtor may make an absolute and unconditional offer of the amount he considers due by tendering the money in the sight of the creditor or his legal representative. 33. If not accepted, the debtor shall, at his own risk and paying the charges, deposit the money with the consul, who shall receipt to him and notify the creditor. 34. It shall be paid to the creditor at any time, if demanded, unless previously withdrawn by the depositor. 35. If the depositor does not withdraw his deposit, and, upon trial, is not adjudged to have owed the petitioner at the time of the tender more than its amount, he shall recover all his costs. 36.- At any stage of a suit in contract or wrong, defendant may file an offer to be defaulted for a specific sum and the costs up to that time; and if petitioner chooses to proceed to trial, and does not recover more than the sum offered, and interest, he shall pay all defendant's costs arising after the offer, execution issuing for the balance only. III. REFERENCE. 37. "When parties agree to a reference they shall immediately file a rule, and the case be marked " Referred ;" a commission shall then issue to the referees, with a copy of all papers filed in the case. 38. The referees shall report their award to the consul, who shall accept the same, and give judgment and issue execution thereon, unless satisfied of fraud, perjury, corruption, or gross error in the proceedings. 39. In cases involving more than five hundred dollars, if his accept- ance is withheld, the consul shall at once transmit the whole case, with a brief statement of his reasons, and the evidence thereon, to the min- ister, who shall give judgment on the award, or grant a new trial before the consul. CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 241 IV. APPEAL. 40. Appeals must be claimed before three o'clock in the afternoon of the day after judgment (excluding Sunday) ; but in civil cases, only upon sufficient security. 41. Within five days after judgment the appellant must set forth his reasons by petition filed with the consul, which shall be trans- mitted as soon as may be to the minister, with a copy of docket entries and of all papers in the case. V. NEW TRIAL. 42. On proof of the perjury of any important witness of the pre- vailing party upon a material point, affecting the decision of a suit, the consul who tried it may, within a year after final judgment, grant a new trial on such terms as he may deem just. 43. Within one year after final judgment in any suit not involving more than five hundred dollars, the consul who tried it, or his suc- cessor, may, upon sufficient security, grant a new trial where justice manifestly requires it; if exceeding $500, with concurrence of the minister. VI. HABEAS CORPUS. 44. No consul shall recognize the claim of any American citizen arising out of a violation of the provisions of the act of Congress approved February 19, 1862, relating to the " coolie trade " so-called, nor any claim which involves the holding any person in slavery. 45. Upon application of any person in writing and under oath, representing that he or any other person is enslaved, unlawfully imprisoned, or deprived of his liberty by any American citizen within the jurisdiction of a consul, such consul may issue his writ of habeas corpus, directing such citizen to bring the said person, if in his custody or under his control, before him, and the question shall be determined summarily, subject to appeal. VII. DIVORCE. 46. Libels for divorce must be signed and sworn to before the consul, and on the trial each party may testify. 47. The consul, for good cause, may order the attechment of libeller's property to such an amount and on such terms as he may think proper. 48. He may also, at his discretion, order the husband to advance to his wife, or pay into court, a reasonable sum to enable her to prose- cute or defend the libel, with a reasonable monthly allowance for her support, pending the proceedings. ' 49. Alimony may be awarded or denied the wife on her divorce at his discretion. 50. Custody of the minor children may be decreed to such party as justice and the children's good may require. 51. Divorce releases both parties, and they shall not be remarried to each other. 52. Costs are at the discretion of the consul. H. Doc. 326, 59-2 16 242 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. VIII. MARRIAGE. 53. Each consul shall record all marriages solemnized by him or in his official presence. IX. BIRTHS AND DEATHS. 54. The birth and death of every American citizen within the limits of his jurisdiction shall likewise be recorded. X. BANKRUPTCY, PARTNERSHIP, PROBATE, ETC. 55. Until promulgation of further regulations, consuls will con- tinue to exercise their former lawful jurisdiction and authority in bankruptcy, partnerships, probate of wills, administration of estates, and other matters of equity, admiralty, ecclesiastical and common law, not specially provided tor in previous decrees, according to such reasonable rules, not repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, and laws of the United States, as they may find necessary or convenient to adopt. XI. SEAMEN. 56. In proceedings or prosecutions instituted by or against Ameri- can, seamen, the consul may, at his discretion, suspend any of these rules in favor of the seamen when, in his opinion, justice, humanity, and public policy require it. XH. CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS. 57. Complaints and informations against American citizens should always be signed and sworn to before the consul when the complain- ant or informant is at or near the consul's port. 58. All complaints, and informations not so signed and sworn to by a citizen of the United States, and all complaints and informations in capital cases must be authenticated by the consul's certificate of his knowledge or belief of the substantial truth of enough of the complaint or information to justify the arrest of the party charged. 59. No citizen shall be arraigned for trial until the offense charged is distinctly made known to him by the consul in respondent's own language. In cases of magnitude, and in all cases when demanded, an attested copy (or translation) of the complaint, information, or statement, authenticated by the consul, shall be furnished him in his own language, as soon as may be, after his arest. 60. The personal presence of the acused is indispensible through- out the trial. 61. He shall be informed of his right to testify,.and cautioned that if he chooses to offer himself as a witness he must answer all ques- tions that may be propounded by the consul or his order, like any other witness. 62. The Government and the accused are equally entitled to com- pulsory process for witnesses within their jurisdiction, and if the consul believes the accused to be unable to advance the fees his .neces- sary witnesses shall be summoned at the expense of the United States. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 243 63. When punishment is by fine, costs may be included or remitted at the consul's discretion. An alternative sentence of thirty days' imprisonment shall take effect on nonpayment of any part of the fine or costs adjudged in any criminal proceedings. 64. Any prisoner, before conviction, may be admitted to bail by the consul who tries him, except in capital cases. 65. No prisoner charged with capital offense shall be admitted 'to bail where the proof is evident or the presumption of his guilt great. 66. After conviction and appeal the prisoner may be admitted to bail only by the minister. 67. Any citizen of the United States offering himself as bail shall sign and swear, before the consul, to a schedule of unencumbered personal property of a value of at least double the amount of the required bail. 68. Any other proposed bail or security shall sign and swear before the consul to a similar schedule of unencumbered personal property within the local jiirisdiction of the consulate, or he may be required to deposit the amount in money or valuables with the consul. 69. Unless such sufficient citizen becomes bail, or such deposit is made, at least two sureties shall be required. 70. Any American bail may have leave of the consul to surrender his principal on payment of all costs and expenses. 71. Any complainant, informant, or prosecutor may be required to give security for all costs of the prosecution, including those of the accused; and every complainant, &c, not a citizen of the United States, shall be so required, unless in the consul's opinion justice will be better promoted otherwise; and when such security is refused the prosecution shall abate. 72. When the innocence of the accused, both in law and in intention, is manifest, the consul shall add to the usual judgment of acquittal the word " honorably." 73. In such case judgment may be given and execution issued sum- marily against any informer, complainant, or prosecutor for the whole costs of the trial, including those of the accused, or for any part of either or both, if the proceeding appears to have been ground- less and vexatious, originating in corrupt, malicious, or vindictive motives. 74. Consuls will ordinarily encourage the settlement of all prose- cutions, not of a heinous character, by the parties aggrieved or con- cerned. xrri. oaths. 75. Oaths shall be administered in some language that the witness understands. 76. A witness not a Christian shall be sworn according to his reli- gious belief. 77. An avowed atheist shall not be sworn, but may affirm, under the pains and penalties of perjury, the credibility of his evidence being for the consideration of the consul. 78. A Christian, conscientiously scrupulous of an oath, may affirm under the pains and penalties of perjury. 244 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. XIV. DOCKETS, RECORDS, ETC. 79. Each consul shall keep a regular docket or calendar of all civil actions and proceedings, entering each case separately, numbering consecutively to the end of his term of office, with the date of filing, the names of the parties in full, their nationality, the nature of the proceeding, the sum or thing claimed, with minutes and dates of all orders, decrees, continuances, appeals, and proceedings, until final judgment. 80. He shall keep another regular docket for all criminal cases, with sufficient similar memoranda: 81. All original papers shall be filed at once and never removed; no person but an officer of the consulate or the minister should be allowed access to them/ All papers in a case must be kept together in one inclosure and numbered as in the docket, with the parties' names, the nature of the proceedings, the year of filing the petition and of final judgment conspicuously marked on the inclosure, and each year's cases kept by themselves in their order. XV. LIMITATION OF ACTIONS AND PROSECUTIONS. 82. Heinous offenses, not capital, must be prosecuted within six years; minor offenses within one. 83. Civil actions based on written promise, contract, or instrument must be commenced within six years after the cause of action accrues ; others within two. 84. In prosecutions for heinous offenses, not capital, and in civil cases involving more than $500, any absence of respondent or defend- ant for more than three months at a time from China shall be added to the limitation; and in civil cases involving more than $100, the period during which the cause of action may be fraudulently con- cealed by defendant shall likewise be added. XVI. GENERAL PROVISIONS. 85. All trials and proceedings in the United States consular courts in China shall be open and public. 86. Papers and testimony in a foreign language shall be translated into English by a sworn interpreter appointed by the consul ; in civil cases to be paid by petitioner. Oaths and questions shall be trans- lated by the interpreter from the English for any witness who does not understand English. 87. Parties may be required to file their petitions, answers, com- plaints, informations, and all other papers addressed to the court, in English ; or they may be translated by the interpreter at the consul's discretion. All testimony must be taken in writing in open court, by the consul or his order, and signed by the witness, after being read over to him for his approval and correction, and it shall form part of the papers in the case. 88. The consul may adjourn his court from time to time and place to place withm his jurisdiction, always commencing proceedings and giving judgment at the consulate. 89. All processes not served by the consul personally must be exe- cuted by an officer of the consulate, who shall sign his return, speci- CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 245 fying the time and mode of service, and annexing an account of his fees. 90. On appeal, copies of all the papers must be paid for in advance by the appellant, except in criminal cases where respondent is unable to pay. 91. Any person interested is entitled to a copy of any paper on file, on prepayment of the fee. 92. Reasonable clearness, precision, and certainty should be re- quired in the papers; and substantial justice and all practicable dispatch is expected in the decisions. 93. The word " consul " is intended to include the consul-general, and any vice-consul or deputy-consul actually exercising the consular power at any consulate, unless the sense requires a more limited con- struction. 94. Each associate in a consular trial shall, before entering on his duties, be sworn by the consul. Before taking the oath, he may be challenged by either party, and for sufficient cause excused and another drawn. 95. Consuls will always preserve order in court, punishing sum- marily any contempt committed in their presence or any refusal to obey their lawful summons or order, by imprisonment not exceeding twenty-four hours, or by fine not exceeding $50 and costs. 96. Every party to a civil or criminal proceeding may be heard in person, or by attorney of his choice, or by both; but the presence of counsel shall be under the exclusive control and discretion of the consul. 97. The accounts of the consular courts shall be kept in United States currency ; and every order of deposit, decree of costs, taxation of fees, and, generally, every paper issuing originally from the court, shall be expressed in dollars and cents, and satisfied in United States metallic currency, or its equivalent. XVII. TEES. [98-105, Table of fees, omitted.] XVIII. PROVISO. 106. All decrees heretofore issued by authority of the commis- sioners and ministers of the United States to China which are incon- sistent in whole or in part with the provisions of this decree are hereby annulled, and those portions are henceforth void and of no effect; and the promulgation of these rules abrogates no authority hitherto lawfully exercised by consuls in China not inconsistent herewith. [Forms omitted.] [Signed] Anson Burlingame. Peking, April 23, 1864.. 2. SAME, SUMMONS TO ABSENTEES, 1881. I. In civil proceedings between American citizens in the consular courts in China, the service of summons upon the defendant, if he is found within the Empire of China, shall be personal ; that is, the copy 246 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. of the complaint and summons duly certified by a marshal of any con- sular court in China shall be delivered int.o the hands of the person to be served. The officer so serving the summons shall certify the same to the consul before whom the suit is brought. II. When the defendant has removed from or is absent from the Empire, or conceals himself therein to avoid the service of summons and the fact appears by affidavit to the satisfaction of the consul, and it also appears by such affidavit or by the verified complaint on file that a good cause of action exists against the defendant or that he is a necessary party to the action, such consul may make an order that the service be made by publication of the summons. Such order shall direct the publication to be made in a newspaper of general circulation (to be named) for such length of time as may be reasonable, in not less than six issues of such paper if a daily, and in not less than four issues if a weekly. Such publication shall be made' in a newspaper published nearest to the consulate where the suit or proceeding is pending at least five months before the time fixed for the trial by the consul. In case of publication, when the residence of a nonresident or absent, defendant is unknown, the consul shall direct a copy of the complaint and summons, duly certified, and addressed to the person to be served at his supposed place of residence, to be deposited in the post-office by the marshal of said court. [Signed] James B. Angkll. Peking, May 2'6, 1881. 3. SAME, ARRESTS, AND RENDITIONS, 1897. Whenever a criminal action is pending in any consular district in China against a citizen of the United States of America who may be found in any other consular district in China, it shall be lawful for the consul before whom the action is pending to issue his warrant for the arrest of such citizen wherever he may be found in China. Such warrant shall be visaed by the consul in whose district the accused may be found, and thereupon the accused shall be arrested by the United States marshal of the district in which he' may be found and shall be transported to the consular district in which the case against him is pending, for trial before the consular court thereof. [Signed] Charles Denby. Peking, September 15, 1897. Exhibit H. OPINIONS OF ATTORNEFS-GENERAL DEALING WITH QUESTIONS OF EXTRATERRITORIALITY. Isaac Toucey. Opin. Atty. Gen., 67-9, Jan. 31, 1849. Place and manner of executing criminal penalties. Caleb Cushing. 6 Opin. Atty. Gen., 59-60, June 28, 1853. Expense of ^'transferring native Chinese pirates to Hongkong lawfully payable from judiciary fund. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 247 Caleb Cushing. 7 Opin. Atty. Gen., 18-32, Nov. 4, 1854. Author- ity of consuls in non j Christian states to solemnize marriage. Caleb Cushing. 7 Opin. Atty. Gen., 186-229, May 25, 1855. His- tory of the missions to negotiate treaties with the Barbary States, Turkey, and China. Caleb Cushing. 7 Opin. Atty. Gen., 342-9, July 14, 1855. Funda- mental differences between consular authority in Christian and non- Christian states explained. Caleb Cushing. 7 Opin. Atty. Gen., 495-522, Sept. 19, 1875. Gen- eral explanation of the treaty of 1844 with China and of the act of 1848, with special reference to collection of customs in China, to the appellate jurisdiction of the minister to China, and the legal compe- tency of vice-consuls to act judicially. Caleb Cushing. 7 Opin. Atty. Gen., 565-71, Oct. 23, 1855. Juris- diction by usage in civil cases in Turkey. Caleb Cushing. 8 Opin. Atty. Gen., 380-7, Feb. 11, 1857. Trans- fer to the United States of persons accused of crime on the high seas. J f S. Black. 9 Opin. Atty. Gen., 294-5, Mar. 16, 1859. Kestriction •of the judicial authority of the commissioner to China to the five' ports. Edward Bates. 10 Opin. Atty. Gen., 250-2, May 12, 1862. Salary of a marshal began to run from time of entering on duties prelimi- nary to departure from the United States. G. H. Williams. 14 Opin. Atty. Gen., 522-4, Feb. 4, 1875. Sen- tences of imprisonment can not legally be executed beyond jurisdiction •of the court which pronounced them. A. H. Garland. 18 Opin. Atty. Gen., 219-20, July 6, 1885. Au- thority to send an agent to try an offender in a barbarous country. O. W. Chapman (Acting). 19 Opin. Atty. Gen., 377-81, Aug. 14, 1889. The President has no authority to order the removal of a pris- oner from one prison to another. W. H. H. Miller. 20 Opin. Atty. Gen., 92-3, May 17, 1891/ Acting consuls have no judicial authority. W. H. H. Miller. 20 Opin. Atty. Gen., 391^, May 7, 1892. A sen- tence of imprisonment in China can be served out anywhere in China. P. C. Knox. 23 Opin. Atty. Gen., 608-14, Jan. 3, 1902. Oath of a foreign subject appointed as marshal. Table of Cases Cited in Appendix I. Page. Abbington v. North Bridgewater (1839), 23 Pick 103 Ableman*. Booth (1858), 21 How., 506, 517 45 Ackerman*. Haenck (1892), 147 111., 514 135 (The) Acorn (1870), 2 Abb., 434 126,128,129 In re Ah Ping (1885), 23 Fed., 329 51 In re. Ah Yup (1878), 5 Sawy., 155; s. c, 6 Cent. L. J., 387 74,99,100,101 Ainslee*. Martin (1813), 9 Mass., 454 157 Albany*. Derby (1858), 30 W., 718 77,80,165 Alberty v. U. S. (1895), 162 U. 8., 499 69 In re Alien (1845), 7 Hill, 137 112,117,124,126 In re Alien (1842 about), 1 Fed. Cas. No. 201a 103,107,115 Alsberry v. Hawkins (1839) , 9 Dana, 177 49, 145, 146, 161, 165, 166 Am. Ins. Co. v. Canter (1828), 1 Pet, 511 45,47,72,156,158 Amy*. Smith (1822), 1 Litt. (Kv.), 326, 333 64 Anderson*. Baker (1865), 23 Md., 531 46 Andres*. Arnold (1889), 77 Mich., 85 120 Anonymous (1859), 21 Law Reporter, 630 65 Anonymous (1859), Fed. Cas. 465 108 Anthony v. Holderman (1871), 7 Kans.,50 46,99 Atty. Gen. *. Detroit (1889), 78 Mich., 545, 563 154 Bahuaua*. Bize (1901), 2 Sawy., 200 127,154 In re Bailey (1872), 2Sawy.,200 107,110 Baird *. Byrne (1854), 3 Wall. Jr., 1 122,123,162 Banks?;. Walker (1848), 3 Barb. Ch., 438 128,134,135 Barney *. Baltimore City (1867), 6 Wall., 280 47 Barzizas*. Hopkins (1824), 2 Rand., 276 78,151,165 Beardstown*. Virginia (1876), 81 111., 541 : 95,133,135 Beavin's Petitioner (1856), 33 New Hamp., 89 95,97 Beck*. McGillis (1850), 9 Barb., 35 50,151,165 Belcher*. Farren (1891), 89 Calif , 73 49,127,129,131 Benny*. O'Brien (1895), 58 N. J. L. , 36 73 Berry*. Hull (1892), 6 New Mex., 643 107,121,122,138 Blanck*. Pausch (1885), 113 111., 60 46 Blight*. Rochester (1822), 7 Wheat., 535,546 49,127 Exparte Blumer (1865), 27 Texas, 734 52 Blythe*. Ayres (1892), 96 Calif., 532 142 Bode*. Trimmer (1890), 82 Calif., 513 49,126,131 inreBodek (1894), 63 Fed., 813 124,125 Bollin*. Nebraska (1900), 176 U. S., 83 154 JnreBoso (1890), 6 Kulp., 83 120 Boyd *. Nebraska (1891 ), 143 N. S., 135, 180 127, 131, 143, 154 Broadis*. Broadis (1898), 86 Fed., 951 149 Brown*. Shilling (1856), 9 Md., 74 (82) 102,130,143 Brown*. U. S. (1869), 5 Ct. of CI., 571 50 Browne*. Dexter (1884), 66 Calif., 39 78,142,143,163 Ex parte Brownlee (1848), 9 Ark., 191 122 Burkett*. McCarty (1874), 10 Bush., 758 „ 164 Ex parte Burkhardt (1856), 16 Tex., 470 92,95 Burney*. State (1872), 48 Ala., 195 99 Inre Burton (1900), 1 Alaska, 111 98 Bye— In Matter— (1869), 2 Daly, 525 108 Calais*. Marshfleld (1849), 30 Me., 511 76,156,157,163,164 Inre Camille (1880), 6 Sawy., 541 72 Campbell *. Gordon (1809), 6 Cranch, 176 126, 129, 138, 141 Campbell*. Wallace (1841), 12 N. H., 362 48,77 Carlisle*. U.S. (1872), 16 Wall., 147 48 249 250 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. Carter v. Territory (1859), 1 New Mex., 317 90, 123, 156, 158 Catlett & Keith v. Insurance Co. ( 1826 ) , 1 Paine C. C. , 594 46, 1 35 In re Celestine (1902), 114 Fed., 551 54,59 ' Ex parte Chan San Hee (1888), 35 Fed., 354 74 Chancellors. Martin (1840), 1 B. Mon., 25 69 Charlesw. Mfg. Co. (1835), 17 Pick., 70 , 77 (The) Charming Betsy (1804), 2 Cranch, 64 50,160,164 Cherokee Nation v. State of Ga. (1831), 5 Pet, 1 52,54 (The) Cherokee Tobacco (1870), 11 Wall., 616 •. 55 Cherpkee Trust Fundus (1855), 117 U. S., 289 59 Inre Chew Heong (1884), 10 Sawy., 361 51 Chinese Exclusion Case (1888), 130 U. S., 581 51 Chiracs Chirac (1817), 2 Wheat, 259 82,83 Matter of Christern (1878) , 11 Jones & Sp. (43 N. Y. Superior) , 523 ... . 95, 129, 133 Cissels. McDonald (1879) 16 Blatch., 153 47 In re Clark (1854), 18 Barb., 444; 10 How. Pr., 246, s. c; 1 Abb. Pr., 90 105, 107, 113, 116, 124, 126 Clark v. Gautier (1859), 8 Fla , 360 65 Cohens s. Virginia (1821), 6 Wheat, 264, 381 45 in re Coleman (1879), 15 Blatch., 406 126,129 Collets. Collet (1792), 2 Dallas, 294 ..... 81,82,86 Comitis s. Parkerson ( 1893 ) , 56 Fed. ,556 82, 150, 152, 162, 166 Com. v. Paper (1868), 1 Brewst, 263 113,114,132,134 Com.D. Towles (1835), 5 Leigh (Va.), 743 131,135 Connollys. Smith (1839), 21 Wend., 59 145,149 In re Connor (1870), 39 Calif., 98; S. C, 2 Am. Bep., 427 92,95 Contzens. U. S. (1900), 179 U. S., 191 127 Contested Elections of 1868, 2 Brewster, 130 133 In re Conway (1865), 17 Wis., 526 122,138 Cooms, Petitioner (1879), 127 Mass., 278 58 Cooper, s. Mayor (1848), 4 Geo., 68 64 Corfields. Coryell (1823), 4 Wash. C. C.,371. 44 Coxes. Gulick (1829), 5 Halst, N. J., 328 50,135,157 Crandalls. State (1834), 10 Conn., 339 63,64 Cranes. Eeeder (1872), 25 Mich., 303 : 141,156,157 Ex parte Cregg (1854), 2 Curtis (C. C), 98 88,91,126 Croesus Min. Co. s. Co. (1884), 19 Fed., 78 95,119 Cryers. Andrews (1853), 11 Tex., 170 154 Cully v. B. B. Co. (1876) 1 Hughes, 536 44 Cumming's Petition (1860), 41 N. H., 270 114,124 Currins. Finn (1846), 3 Denio, 229 149 Dales. Irwin (1875), 78 111., 170 142,144 Danzell s. Webquish (1871), 102 Mass., 133 58 Davis v. Darrdw (1834), 12 Wend., 65 149,156,157 Davis v. Hall (1818), 1 Mott & Mc. (S. C.),293 60,70,77,78,85,150 Dean, Petitioner (1890), 83 Me., 489 89 Desbois' Case (1812), 2 Martin, 185 45,72,156,157 Matter of Desty (1880), 8 Abb. (N. C), 250 122,129,130,133, De Wolfs. Bibaud (1828), 1 Peters, 484 .' 135 Donovans. Pitcher (1875), 53 Ala., 411; 25 Am. Bep., 634 65 Dorrs. U. S. (1903), 195 II. S., 138 , ;. 73 Dorsey v. Brigham (1898), 177 111., 250 46,123,138,146 Dos Hermanos (1817), 2 Wheat, 76 51,157,167 Inre Douglas (1871), 5 West. Jur., 171 118 Downess. Bidwell (1900), 182 U.S., 244 73 Elk s. Wilkins (1884) , 112 U. S., 94 .54, 57, 58 Ely s. Thompson ( 1820), 3 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.), 70.... 66 Esther's Heirs s. Akin (1842), 3 B. Mon., 60.. ... 69 Fables. Fable (1835), 2 Hill Eq. (S. C), 378 "* " 63. Fellows v. Blacksmith (1856), 19 How., 366; S. C, 7 N. ¥., 401 53 Fishs. Stoughton (1801), 2 Johns, C. A., 407 163 Francis, The (1813), 1 Galli., 614 .166 Frances, The (1814), 8 Cranch, 347; id., 363 51 Friendschaft, The (1818), 3 Wheat, 14,50, 52, 51 Fronascone In re (1900), 99 Fed., 48 ■ . 121, 122, 123 G&rUnd Ex parte (1866), 4 Wall., 333 (380).....: - ■;•• ..:... 117 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 251 Page. Gassies *. Ballon (1832) , 6 Pet., 760 45 Gee Fook Sing (1892), 1 C. C. A., 211.... 74 Gee Hop Inre (1895), 71 Fed., 274 L 100, i.SO, 131 Gilroy, Petitioner (1895), 88 Me., 199 97 Giovanna In re (1899), 93 Fed., 659 73 Gladhill Ex parte (1844), 8 Met, 168 89, 90, 91., 92, 95 Goetchens v. Matthewson (1875), 61 N. Y., 420 159 Golden?'. Prince (1814), 3 Wash., 313 87 Gon-Shay-Ee, Petitioner (1889), 130 U. S., 343 55 Gongalez*. Williams (1903), 192 IT. S., 1 73 156 Gonzalez In re (1902), 118 Fed., 941 72 156 Gormley Inre (1880), 14 Phila., 211...., 110 Gougar*. Timberlake (1896), 148 Ind., 38 46 Gray *. Ohio (1829), 4 Ohio, 353 70,Yl Green's Son v. Salas (1887), 31 Fed., 106 49, 126, 127, 129, 130, 132, 135, 167 Greer v. Sankston (1858), 26 How. Pr., 472 148 Guinrn*. Hubbard (1888), 97 Mo., 311 ' 144,149 Guyer's Lessees. Smith (1864), 22 Fed., 239 142 Hall*>. De Cuir (1877), 95 U. S., 485, 508 ." 99 Halsey *. Beer (1889), 52 Hun., 366 150,152,153,166 Harley *. State (1867), 40 Ala., 689 126,128 Inre Harold (1840), 1 Clark (Pa. L. J.), 214 72,156,157 Hartford v. Canaan (1886), 54 Conn., 39 73 Hastings *. Farmer (1850), 4 N. Y., 293 56 Hatch*. Ferguson (1893), 57 Fed., 959 54,59,147,150 Hauenstein*. Lynham (1879), 100 U. S., 483 49 Hawaii *. Mankichi (1902), 190,11. S., 197 73 ExparU Hawley (1866), 1 Daly, 531 102,104,105,107,115 Headman*. Rose (1879), 63 Ga., 458 95 Hedgman v. Board (1872) , 26 Mich., 51 77 Heirn*. Bridault (1859), 8 George (37 Miss.), 209 ' 65 Heeney v. Brooklyn Ben. Soc. (1868), 39 N. Y., 332; s. c. 33 Barb., 360... 137 Hepburn*. Ellzey (1865), 2 Cranch, 445. 47 Hicks*. Ewhartonah (1866), 21 Ark., 106 56 Hilgers *. Quinney (1881 ), 51 Wis., 62 58, 60 Hogan*. Kurtz (1876), 94 U. S., 773, 777 49,129 Hollingsworth *. Duane (1801), Wall. C. 0., 50 50,135,157 Holt*. Holt (1871), 59 Me., 464 1 159 In re Hong Yen Chang (1890), 84 Calif., 163 100,131 Houston d. Moore (1820), 5 Wheat., 1, 49 87 Huber*. Reily (1866), 53 Pa. St., 112 159 Hudgins *. Wright ( 1806), 1 Henn. & Munn, 134 , 68 Hunt*. State (1866), 4 Kans., 60 54,56 Inglis*. Sailor's Snug Harbor (1830), 3 Pet, 99 50, 75, 156> 158 Jackson*. Beach (1800), 1 Johns. Ca., 399 137 Jackson*. Goodall (1822), 20 Johns., 187 , 56,58 Jackson v. Green (1831), 7 Wend., 333 137 Jackson v. White (1822), 20 Johns., $13 , 49 Jackson *. Wood ( 1810), 7 Johns , 290 56 Jackson *. Wright (1809), 4 Johns., .75 49 Jansen v. Brigantine (1794), Bee, 11..., 160,164 Jeffries*. Ankeny (1842), 11 Ohio, 372 71 Jennes*. Landes (1897), 84 Fed;, 73 152,162,166 Johnson*. Mcintosh (1823), 8 Wheat, 543, 589 158, Johnson*. IT. S. (1893), 29 Ct of Cl.,1 122,123 Jones*. McMasters (1857), 20 How., 8 49,76,157 In re Kanaka Nian (1889), 21 Pac, 993; 6 Utah, 259 116 ' Kane*. McCarthy (1869), 63 N. C. 299 146,149 The Kansas Indians (1866), 5 Wall., 737 54,55,56' Karrahoo *. Adams (1870), 1 Dill., 345 54 Kelly*. Harrison ( 1800) , 2 Johns. Cas., 29 148,149,151 Kelley*. Owen (1868), 7 Wall., 496 ,..,..,... 146,148 Ex parte Kenyon (1878), 5 Dill., 385 ,. 54,60,61,167 Kilham*. Ward (1806), 2 Mass., 236 , 157 Ex parte Kinney (1879), 3 Hughes, 1., ,.,.. .. 44 Kircher*. Murray (1893), 54 Fed., 547 148,155,163 252 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. Page. Knickerbocker Ins. Co. v. Garbach (1871), 70 Pa. St., 150 149 Ex parte Knowles (1855), 5 Calif., 300 -■ 84 Knox Co. v. Davis (1872), 63 111., 405, 420 .■ 95 Kreitz v. Behrensmeyer (1888), 125 111., 141, 198 129, 144, 146, 149 Lanev. Baker (1843), 12 Ohio, 237 71 Langfordw. Monteith (1880), 102 U. S., 145 55 In re Langtry (1887) , 31 Fed., 879 102, 119, 120, 132, 134, 135 Lanzu. Randall (1876), 4 Dill., 425 45,46,83,122,123 Laurent v. State (1863), 1 Kan., 313-315 46 LauOwBeww. U. S. (1891), 144 U. S., 47 51 Lee Sing Far v. U. S. (1899), 94 Fed., 834 74 Leitensdorfer v. Webb (1857), 20 How., 177 159 Lem Moon Sing v. TJ. S. (1894), 158 U. S., 538 51 Lemmon v. People, 20 N. Y., 562, 607 - 47 Leng Him Dun i>. U. S. (1892), 1 C. O. A., 210 „ 74 Leonard v. Grant (1880), 5 Fed., 11 146,147 Levin a. U. S. (1904), 63 U. S. C. C. A., 476 94,95 Levin t>. TJ. S. (1904), 128 Fed., 826 93,95 License cases (1874), 5 How., 504, 585 82,87 Listerk Wright. (1842), 2 Hill, 320 48 In re Lipshitz (1899), 97 Fed., 585 114 IrareLoney (1889), 134 U. S., 372, 376 96 In re Look Tin Sing (1884), 21 Fed., 905 73 Ludlamj). Ludlam (1860), 31 Barb., 487 47,51,79,140 Luhrst). Eimer (1880), 80 N. Y., 171 149 Lynch v. Clarke (1844), 1 Sandf. Ch., 641-583 73,75,85,165 Lyndon v. Danville (1856), 28 Vt, 809 77 Lyons v. Cunningham (1884), 66 Cal., 42 46 In re McCarran (1894), 8 Misc., 482 133,134,136 McCarthy*. Marsh (1851), 5N.Y., 261 126,127,129 McCarty v. Hodges (1846) , 2 Edm. Sel. Cas. (N. Y. ) , 433 122, 129, 134, 135 McCleanu. Swanton (1856), 13 N. Y., 535 73 In re McCoppin (1869), 5 Sawy., 630 113,126,129,133 McL'reery's Lessees. Somerville (1824), 9 Wheat, 354 73 McGregors. McGregor (1864), 1 Keyes, 133, 136 46 Mcllvaine«. Coxe (1808), 4 Cranch, 208; 2 Cranch, 280 80,160,164 McKay v. Campbell (1871), 2 Sawy., 118; s. c. 2 Abb's. U. S., 120 69,72,73 Mackey v. Cox (1855), 18 How., 100 54 Ex parte McKenzie (1897), 51 S. C.,244 94,95 McKinney v. Saviego (1855), 18 How., 235 154,156,157 Maloy v. Duden (1885), 25 Fed., 673 122 Manchester v. Boston (1819), 16 Mass., 230 : . . 157 Marshall v. Dona van (1874), 73Ky.,681 65 Matthews Lessee v. Rae (1829), 3 Cr. C C, 699 82 In re Merry (1880), 14 Phila., 212 114,122 Mickw. Mick (1833), 10 Wend., 379 137,149 Miller v. Prentice (1889), 82 Calif., 104 49,131 Miller v. Reinhart (1855), 18 Ga.,239 .' 130 Mills v. McCabe (1867), 44 111., 194... 91,95 (City of) Minneapolis v. Reum (1893), 56 Fed., 576, 579 46,49,84,122 Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall., 162, 163 44,46,154 Mitchell v. U. S. (1835), 9 Pet., 746 53 Mitchell v. Wells (1859), 8 George (37 Miss.), 209 1 65 Molyneuxa. Seymour, Fanning & Co. (1860), 30 Ga., 440 48 Moore v. Tisdale (1845), 5 B. Mon., 352 . 146,165,167 Moore v. Wilson (1837), 10 Yerger, 406 48, 156, 157 Morgan v. Dudley (1857), 18 B. Mon., 693 .. 92,95,97 In re Morrison (1861), 22 Howard, 99 138 In re Moses (1897), 83 Fed., 995 138 Munro v. Merchant (1858), 26 Barb., 383 (400) 73 Murphy v. Ramsey (1884), 114 U. S., 15, 44 156,157 Murray v. McCarty (1811), 2 Munf., 397 50,164 Murray v. Wooden (1837), 17 Wend., 531 56 Nalle*. Fen wick (1826), 4 Rand., 585 127 Ex parte Newman (1813), 2 Gall. (U. S.), 11 101 (Corp. of) New Orleans v. Winter (1816), 1 Wheat., 91 ... 47 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 253 Page. North Noonday Mining Co. v. Orient Mining Co. (1880), 11 Fed., 126 131,141 The New York Indians (1866), 5 Wall., 761 54,55,56 O'Briens. Woody (1846), 4 McL., 75 106 O'Connors State (1860), 9 Fla., 215 141 Oldtown?). Bangor (1870), 58 Me., 353 78 Opinion of the Justices (1857), 44 Me., 507 46 Orosco v. Gagliardo (1863), 22 Cal., 83 122 Ex parte Overington (1812), 5 Binn., 371 101,138 In re Pangara (1892), 51 Fed., 275 52 Parsons v. Bedford ( 1830), 3 Peters, 443, 446 92 Ex parte Pasqualt (1805), 1 Cr. O. C, 243 104,105,107,112 Passenger cases (1849), 7 How., 282, 555 82,83,87 Ex parte Paul (1844), 7 Hill, 56 104,105 Peck-i>. Young (1843), 1 How., 250 140,141 Pegram v. Isabel (1802), 2 Hen. and Mun., 193 68 Pells v. Webquish (1880), 129 Mass., 469 58 Pendleton v. State (1846), 1 Eng. (Ark.), 509 64 Pennock v. Commissioners (1880), 103 TJ. S., 44 56,60,150 Peoples Antonio (1865), 27 Cal., 404 56 Peoples Conklin (1841), 2 Hill (N. Y.),67 137 Peoples DeLaGuerra (1870), 40 Cal., 311 46,156,157 Peoples McGowan (1875), 77111., 644 95 Peoples McNally (1880), 59 How. Pr., 500 , 128,129,138 Peoples Newell (1885), 38 Hun., 78 144,146,149 Peoples Oldtown (1878), 88 111., 202 46 People v. Pease (1860), 30 Barb., 589-604 92, 95, 130, 133 Peoples Riley (I860), 15 Cal., 48 50,107 Peoples Snyder (1869), 41 N. Y., 397 126 People v. Sweetman ( 1857 ) , 3 Parks Crim . , 358 92, 95, 96, 107, 113, 131 Pequignotu. Citv of Detroit (1883), 16 Fed., 211 150,152,153,166 (The) Peterhoff"(1866), 5 Wall., 28 45 Petersons. State (Texas), (1905), 89 S. W., 81 132,133,135 Ex Parte Pic (1806), 1 Cr. CO., 372 102 Picqueti'. Swan (1828), 5 Mason, 35 46 Pintsch Com. Go. v. Bergin (1897) , 84 Fed., 140. 126, 129, 131, 133, 134 Planters' Bank v. St. John (1869), 1 Woods, 585 45 InrePo (1894), 28 N. Y. Supp., 383 100 Portiere Le Roy (1794), 1 Yeates (Penn.), 371 95 Prentiss v. Brennan (1851), 2 Blatch., 162 45,46 Prentice v. Miller (1890), 82 Calif., 571 129,138 Priest v. Cummings (1837) [1838?], 16 Wend. (N. Y. 617);- 20 Wend., 338... 102, 137,149 Quintana v. Tompkins (1853) , 1 New Mex., 29 156, 158 QuockTingD. U. S. (1891), 140 U. S., 417 '. 74 Radicku. Hutchins (1877), 95 TJ. S., 210 48 Railroad Co. v. U. S. (1875), 92 U. S., 733 : 53 In re Ramsden (1857), 13 How. Pr., 429 82,85,86,96,97,98 In re Randall (1880), 14 Phila., 224 122,123,125 Rasmussenw. U.S. (1904), 197 U. S., 516 73,156,157 Reilly v. Lamar (1805), 2 Cranch, 344 47 Renneru. Muller (1879), 57 How. Pr., 229; s. c. 44 N. Y. Sup. Ct. (12 Jones &Sp.),535 146,147 Rexroth v. Schein (1903), 206111., 80 128,143 Ex parte Reynolds (1879), 5 Dill., 395 54,59,62,67,70 Jn re Rice (1877), 7 Daly, 22 115,165 Richards v. McDaniel (1820), 2 Nott. and Mc, 351; 1 McCord, 187. 121, 123, 125, 135 Ritchie v. Putnam (1835), 13 Wend., 524 126,128 In re Rodriquez (1897), 81 Fed., 337 116,156,157 Roff v. Burney (1897), 168 U. S., 218 62,167 Rossi). Eells (1893), 56 Fed., 855 58 Rouchefl. Williamson (1842), 3 Iredell (Saw.) (N. C), 141,145 85 Ruckgaber v. Moore (1900), 104 Fed., 947 152 Rump a. Commonwealth (1858), 30 Pa. St., 475 96 Rushworth v. Judges of Hudson Pleas (1895), 58 N. J. Law, 97 97,98 JnyeSahQuah (1886), 31 Fed., 327 54,55 The St. Lawrence (1813), 1 Galli., 467 166 254 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. Page. In re Saito (1S94), 62 Fed., 126 100 Santa Scola (1876), 8 Pa. 0. C, 344 121 Santissima Trinidad ( 1821 ) , 1 Brock. , 478, 485 160, 163, 164, 167 Sasportasv. de La Motta (1858), 10 Rich. Eq. (S. C.),38 79,128,143 Ex parte Sauer (1891), 81 Fed., 355 : 118 Ex parte Saunderson (1804), 1 Cr. C. 0., 219 104, 105, 111, 112 Schrimpf v. Sottegast (1873), 38 Tex., 96 123,138 Schutz's Petition (1886), 64 N. H., 241 -.. 115,123 In re Scott (1848), 1 Daly, 534 102,108 Scott v. Sandford (1856), 19 How., 393, 404. See also p. 576 54, 65, 66, 85, 153 Scott w. Strobach (1873), 49 Ala., 477 126,133,134 Severances. Healey (1870), 50 N. H., 449 159 Sewells. Lee (1812), 9 Mass., 363 , 151 Shanks s. Dupont (1830), 3 Pet., 242 150,151 /rare Shaw (1893), 2 Pa. Dist. C, 250 108,132,135 Shaws. Brown (1858), 35 Miss., 246 66 Shearer & Brooks v. Clay (1822), 1 Litt. (Ky.), 260 162 Sinks s. Reese (1869), 39 Ohio St., 306 47 Slades. Minor (1817), 2 Cr. 0. C, 139 131 Slaughter House Cases (1872), 83 U. S., 36, 74 , 44 Ex parte Smith (1847), 8 Blackf. (Ind.), 395 125 Smiths. Moody (1866), 26 Ind., 299 46,63 In re Spencer (1878), 5 Savvy., 195; s. c. 18 Alb. L. J., 353, 6 Reporter, 294... 117 Spencer v. Board of Registration (1873), 1 McArthur (8 Dist. of Col.), 169. ... 46 Spraginss. Houghton (1840), 2 Scam. (3 111.), 377 46 Spratt s. Spratt (1828), 1 Pet., 341 136 Spratt s. Spratt (1830), 4 Peters, 392 126,129,135 Stark s. Chesapeake Ins. Co. (1813), 7 Cr., 420 128 States Adams (1876), 45 Iowa, 99 50,78,79,164 States. Andriano (1887), 92 .VI o., 70 141 State s. Barrett (1889), 40 Minn., 69-65 121 States. Beackmo (1843), 6Blackf., 488 48 States. Brandhorst (1900), 156 Mo., 457 122,133 States. Chew (1881), 16Nev., 50 *4 States. Claiborne (1838), 1 Meig's (Tenn.), 331 64 States. Cole (1864), 17 Wis., 674 122,135 States. Denoyer (1897), 6 N. Dak., 566 58 States. Dibble (1858), 21 How., 366 56 States. Haynes (1880), 54 la., 109 48,77 States. Helle (1833), 2 Hill, 290 96,112,134 States. Hoeflinger (1874), 35 Wis., 393 90,126 State v. McDonald (1877), 24 Min., 48, 59 126,129,133 States. Managers (18-29), 1 Bailey (S. C), 215 58 States. Manuel (1838), 4 Dev. & Bat., 20, 25 62,64.85 States. Mims.(1879),26 Minn., 183 138 States. Newsom (1844), 5 Ired. L., 250 65 States. Olin (1868), 23 Wis., 309 120 State v. Primrose (1842), 3 Ala., 546 72,153,156,157 States. Penny (1850), 10 Ark., 621 97,121,133,140,141 States. Ross (1834), 7 Yerg. (Tenn.), 75 .■ 56 States. Salge (1865), 1 Nev., 455 49,77 States. Symonds (1869), 57 Me., 148 .... 159 States. Webster (1878), 7 Neb., 469 89 States. Whittemore (1870), 50 N. H, 245-251 89,91,95,96,97,98 Stephens, Petitioner (1855), 4 Gray, 559 . 82,85,86,96,97 In matter of Stewart (1868), 7 Robt., 635 110 Stoughton s. Taylor ( 1840 ) , 2 Paine, 655, 661 51, 161, 166, 167 Strouders. West Va. (1879), 100 U. S., 303 ... 99 Strickleys. Hill (1900), 22 Utah, 257, 268 » 129,131 Sutliff s. Forgeoy (1823), 1 Co wen 89; Afi. 5 Cowen, 713 136,145,149 Talbot v. Jansen (1795), 3 Dall. 133-162; Aff. BeeAdm., 11 (23) 45,160 Tauniss. Doe (1852), 21 Ala., 449 63,156,157 Taylors. Drew (1866), 21 Ark., 485 56 Thackers. Hawk (1842), 11 Ohio, 376 ... 71 Tobin s. Walkinshaw (1858), 1 McAllister, 186; s. c. Fed. Cas., No. 14070. 155, 156, 158 JnreTomMun (1888), 47 Fed., 722 ' 51 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 255 Page. Trabingw. U. S. (1897), 32 Gt. of CL, 440 76,143 Trimbles v. Harrison (1840), 1 B. Mon., 140 50, 74, 151, 156, 157, 167 Exparte Tucker (1802), 1 Cr. C. C.,89 Ill Exparte. Turner (1867), 1 Abb. U. 8., 84 99 Ex parte Tweedv (1884), 22 Fed., 84 94,95 U. S.v. Bailey (1834), 1 McLean, 234 55 U. S. v. Boyd (1897), 83 Fed., 547 54,55,57,58 U. S. v. Burley (1877), 14Blatch., 91 96 U. S. v. Canter ( 1870) , 2 Bond, 389 99 U. S. v. Chung Fung Sun (1894), 63 Fed., 261 74 U. S. v. Cruikshank (1875), 92 U. S., 542, 549; s. c. 1 Words, 308 45 TJ. S. v. Cisna (1835), 1 McLean, 258 56 U. S. v. Cook (1873), 19 Wall, 591 53 U. S. v. Crook (1879), 5 Dill., 453 54,60,162 TJ. S. v. Crosby (1871), 1 Hughes, 448 46 TJ. S. v. Flournoy, etc., Co. (1896), 71 Fed., 576 59 TJ. S. v. Forty-three Gallons of Whiskev (1876), 93 U. 8., 188 55 TJ. S. v. Gillies (1815), 1 Pet. C. C, 159". 50,160,165 TJ. S.v. Gleason (1897), 78 Fed., 396 129,132 TJ. S. v. Gorden (1861), 5 Blatch., 20 79 U. 8. v. Greiner (1861), 4 Phila., 396 45 U. S. v. Grottkau (1887), 30 Fed., 672 96,112,134 TJ. S. v. Hadley (1900), 99 Fed., 437 70 TJ. S. v. Higgins (1900), 103 Fed., 348 70 TJ. S. v. Higgins (1901), 110 Fed., 609 70 U. S. v. Hirschfield (1876), 13 Blatch., 330 46 TJ. S. v. Holliday (1865), 3Wall.,407 55 TJ. S. v. Jones (1877), 14Blatch.,90 96 TJ. 8. v. Joseph (1876), 94 U. S., 614 58 TJ. S. v. Kagama (1885), 118 U. S., 375 55 TJ. S. v. Kellar (1882), 13 Fed., 82; s. c. 11 Biss., 314 141,144,149 TJ. S. v. Kornmehl(1898),89Fed.,10 132,134 U. S. v. Kopp (1901), 110 Fed., 160 59 U. S. v. Laverty (181.3), 3 Martin, 733 45,72,153,156,157 U. S. v. Leathers (1879), 6 Sawy., 17 55 TJ. S. v. Lehman (1889), 39 Fed., 49 '. 93,94,95,96 U. S. v. Lucero (1869), 1 New Mex. 53,58,156,157 TJ. S. v. Norsch (1890), 42 Fed., 417 126,132,133,134 U. S. v. Osborne (1880), 6 Sawy., 406 55,57 TJ. S. v. Petersburg ( ), 1 Hughes C. C, 493 46,99 U. S. v. Power (1877), 14 Blatch. (C. C), 223 93,95,96 TJ. S. v. Bagozzini (1892), 50 Fed., 923 ... 95 TJ. S. v. Reese (1875), 92 U. S., 214 46 U. S. v. Bepentigny (1866), 5 Wall., 211 158 U. 8. v. Rhodes (1866), ] Abb. U. S., 28; 1 Am. L. T. Kep., 22 63,99 U. S. v. Ritchie (1854), 58 U. S., 524 58 TJ. S. v. Rodgers (1906), 144 Fed., 711 144 TJ. S. v. Rogers (1846), 4 How., 566 53,55,59,61 TJ. S. v. Sanders (1847), Hemp., 483 , 67,70 U. S. v. Santistevan (1874), 1 New Mex., 583 58,156,157 U. S. v. Severino (1903), 125 Fed., 949 95,96,97 U. S. v. Shanks (1870), 15 Minn., 369 57,59 U. S. v. 8now (1877), 2Flipp, 113 159 U.S. v. Tobacco Factory (1871), 1 Dill., 264 55 U. S. v. Tynen (1870), 11 Wall., 88 96 U. S. v. Villato (1797), 2 DalL, 370; rep. also in Whart. St. Trials, 185 81 U. S. v. Walsh (1884), 22 Fed., 644 96,121,126,129 U. S. v. Ward (1890), 42 Fed., 320 55 U. S. v. Winans (1896), 73 Fed., 72 72 U. S. o. Wong Kim Ark (1898), 169 U. S., 649; s. c. 61 Fed., 382. 44, 47, 74, 77, 82, 84 U. S. v. Yellow Sun (1870), 1 Dill., 270 55,56 Van Valkenburg i>. Brown (1872), 43 Calif., 48 46 Vassev. Miflin (1825), 4 Wash. C. C, 519 47 Vaux v. Nesbit (1826), 1 McCords Ch., 352, 370 128, 130 Venus (The) (1814), 8 Cr., 280, 253 50 Exparte Virginia (1879), 100 U. S., 339 99 256 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. Page. Virginian Rives (1879), 100 U. S., 339 99 Walsh v. Lallande (1873), 25 La. Ann., 188 66 Exparte Walton (1804), 1 Cr. C. C, 186 103,105 111 Ware*;. Wisner (1883), 50 Fed., 310 46, 50, 77, 80, 150, 152' 164 In re Wehlitz (1863), 16 Wise, 443 45,46,85,86 122 Westw. West (1840), 8 Paige, 432 140 141 Westcott's Lessee v. Fairfield (1811), Peter's 0. C, 45 ' 47 Westmoreland v. U. S. (1894), 155 U. S., 545 55 Whiter Brown (1848), 1 Wall., jr., 217 52 103 Whiter Burnley (1857), 20 How., 235 157 White jj. White (1859), 2 Met. Eq. (Ky.), 189 49,123 145 Williams v. Directors (1834), Wright, 578 71 Woodw. Fitzgerald (1870), 3 Oregon, 568 136 Wooldridgei). Wilkins (1839), 3 How. (Miss.), 360 165 Wolff v. Archibald (1882), 14 Fed., 369 79 Worcester v. State of Ga. (1832), 6 Pet, 515 53,54,56 In re Wrigley ( 1831) , 8 Wend., 134 106 In re Wy Shing (1888), 36 Fed., 553 74 In re Yamashita (1902), 30 Wash., 234 133,134,135 136 Yick Wot. Hoffner (1885), 118 U. S., 356 48 Young?;. Peck (1839), 21 Wend., 389 50,139,156,157,166 In re Yung Sing Hee (1888), 36 Fed., 437 74 Zachariev. Godfrey (1869), 99 Am. Dec, 506 45 Appendix II. CITIZENSHIP OF THE STATES OE THE UNION. DEFINITIONS OF -CITIZENSHIP OF A STATE. "A citizen of the United States residing in any State of the Union is a citizen of that State." Marshall, G. J., Gassies v. Ballon (1832), 6 Pet., 761, 762. This principle is confirmed by Article XIV of the amendments to the Constitution in the declaration that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdic- tion thereof are " citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." As regards citizenship of a particular State this definition is incorporated in the constitutions and statutes of various of the States. In Kentucky (Stats., by Carroll (1903), sec. 332) ; Maine (Rev. Stats. (1903), ch. 5, sec. l),"and West Virginia (Const., Art. II, sec. 3), it is incorporated in similar phraseology. In Georgia (Const, Art. I, sec. 1, par. 25), Massachusetts (Rev. Laws (1902), Ch. I, sec. 1), and Mississippi (Const., Art. Ill, sec. 8), all citizens of the United States resident or domiciled in the State are declared to be citizens thereof. In California (Polit. Code, sec. 51), as also in North Dakota (Polit. Code, sec. 11), all persons born in the State and residing therein, except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls, and all persons born out of the State who are citizens of the United States and residing within the State, are de- clared to be citizens of the State. Save the clause expressly except- ing from citizenship children of public ministers and consuls born in the State, the same provision is found in the laws of Montana (Polit. Code, sec. 71). In Vermont citizens of the United States and persons who have become citizens of the State, by virtue of the con- stitution or laws are, while residing in the State, citizens thereof. (Stats. (1894), sec. 60.) In Virginia it is declared that all persons born in the State, all persons born in any other State of the Union, who may be or become residents of the State; all aliens naturalized under the laws of the United States who may be or become residents of the State; all persons who have obtained 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 the State at the time of the birth of such children, shall be deemed citizens of the State (Code (1904, by Pollard), sec. 39). See Exhibit A. RESIDENCE. A person may, uiider the fourteenth amendment, be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a particular State. An important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter. He must reside within the State to make him a citizen of it, while H. Doc. 326, 59-2 17 257 258 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the Union. Miller, J., Slaughter- house cases, 16 Wall., 36, 74. By Article III. sec. 2, of the Con- stitution, the judicial power of the United States is extended to controversies between citizens of different States." The test of citizenship for the purpose of Federal jurisdiction under this section is domicil, which implies a fixed home and abode at the place of residence, with the animus manendi. Poppenhauser v. Comb. Co. (C. C), 14 Fed. Rep., 707; Sharon v. Hill (C. C), 26 Fed. Rep., 337; McDonald v. Flour Mills Co. (C, C), 31 Fed. Rep., 577; Nichols v Nichols (C. C), 92 Fed. Rep., 1; Haskell v. Bailev (C. C. A.), 63 Fed. Rep., 873; Collins v. City of .Ashland (D. C), 112 Fed. Rep., 175; Eisele v. Oddie (C. C), 128 Fed. Rep., 941. It is essential that the citizenship of the parties, or the facts which in legal intend- ment constitute it, should be distinctly and positively averred in the pleadings, or should appear with equal distinctness in other parts of the record ; and the mere averment that a party is a resident of, or resides in, a particular State is not an averment of citizenship in that State for the purposes of jurisdiction. Parker v. Overman, 18 How., 137; Robertson v. Cease, 97 U. S., 646; Continental Ins. Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U. S., 237 ; Everhart v. Huntsville College, 120 U. S., 223 ; Menard v. Goggan, 121 U. S., 253 ; Timmons v. Elyton Land Co., 139 U. S., 378; Denny v. Pironi, 141 U. S., 121; Wolfe v. Hart- ford L. & A. Ins. Co.. 148 U. S., 389 ; Cooper v. Newell, 155 U S., 532 ; Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U S., 141, 143. " The place where a person lives is taken to be his domicil until facts adduced establish the contrary, and a domicil when once acquired is presumed to continue until it is shown to have been changed." Fuller, C. J., Anderson v. Watt (1891), 138 U. S., 694, 706. " The intention and the act must concur in order to effect such a change of domicil as constitutes a change of citizenship." Harlan, J., Morris v. Gilmer (1889), 129 U. S., 315, 328. "There must be an actual, not pretended, change of domicil; in other words, the removal must be ' a real one, animo manendi, and not merely osten- sible.' " Id. citing Case v. Clarke, 5 Mason, 70. "Among the cir- cumstances usually relied upon to establish the animus manendi are: Declarations of the party; the exercise of political rights; the pay- ment of personal taxes; a house of residence, and a place of business." Swayne, J., Mitchell v. United States (1874), 21 Wall., 350, 353. The rules of the several States determining what constitutes a residence sufficient to establish citizenship are chiefly to be found in the decisions of the courts. As codified in California (Polit. Code, sec. 52), Montana (Polit. Code, sec. 72), and North Dakota (Polit. Code, sec. 12) , they are as follows : Every person has, in law, a resi- dence. It is the place where one remains when not called elsewhere for labor or other special or temporary purpose, and to which he returns in seasons of repose. There can be only one residence. A residence can not be lost until another is gained. The residence of the father during his life, and after his death the residence of the mother while she remains unmarried, is the residence of the un- married minor children. The residence of the husband is presump- tively [in California the word " presumptively " does not appear] the residence of the wife. The residence of an unmarried minor who has a parent living can not be changed by either his own act CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 259 • or that of his guardian. Residence can be changed only by the union of act and intent. " Two considerations must be kept steadily in view, and these are, 1, that every person must have a domicil somewhere; and 2, that a man can have only one domicil for one purpose at one and the same time. Every one has a domicil of origin, which he retains until he acquires another, and the one thus acquired is in like manner re- tained." Shaw, C. J., Abington v. North Bridgewater (1839), 23. Pick., 170, 177. " In regard to questions of citizenship, and the disposition of property after death, every person must have a domicil. * * * For every one is presumed to be a subject of some gov- ernment while living, and the law of some country must control the disposition of his property upon his decease." Davis, J., Gilman v. Gilman (1863), 52 Me., 165, 174. '"A man may have more than one place of residence, but he can have but one domicil, and can hold citizenship in but one State." Beck, J., Savage v. Scott (1876), 45 lo., 130, 133. "Actual residence, that is, personal presence in a place, is one circumstance to determine the domicil, or the fact of being an inhabitant; but it is far from being conclusive." Shaw, C. J., Sears v. City of Boston (1840), 1 Met., 250, 251. " The habitation fixed in any place, without any present intention of removing therefrom, is the domicile." Parker, J., Putnam v. Johnson (1813) 10 Mass., 488, 501. "The factum and the animus must concur in order to establish a domicil. Harvard College v. Gore, 5 Pick., 370. The latter may be inferred from proof of the former. But evidence of a mere intent can not establish the fact of domicil." Bigelow, J. (1856), Holmes v. Greene, 7 Gray, 299, 301. " Change of domicil consists of an act done, with an intent. The act is an actual change of residence. The intent to effect the change must be to, acquire a new domicil, either permanent in purpose or of indefinite duration." Stone, C. J., Young v. Pollak (1888), 85 Ala., 439, 444; Caldwell v. Pollak (1890), 91 Ala., 353, 357. "Residence being a visible fact is not usually in doubt. The intention to remain is not so easily proved. Both must concur in order to establish a domicil. * * * And, as both are known to be requisite in order Lo subject one to taxation or to give him the right of suffrage, any resi- dent who submit? to the one or claims the other may be presumed to have such intention." Davis, J., Gilman v. Gilman (1863), 52 Me., 165, 177. See also Thomas v. Warren (1895), 83 Md., 14, 20. " The question what constitutes domicil is mainly a question of fact, and the element of intention enters into it. Personal absence for a while does not necessarily change one's domicil, and personal presence in a place for a somewhat prolonged period does not necessarily establish domi- cile there." Allen, J., Olivieri v. Atkinson (1897), 168 Mass., 28, 29. One may acquire a domicil by the residence of a day, if to the fact of residence be superadded the requisite intention. Littlefield v. Brooks, 50 Me., 475; Parsons v. Bangor, 61 Me., 457; Stockton v. Staples, 66 Me., 197. "An absence for months, or even years, if all the while intended as a mere temporary absence for some temporary purpose, to be followed by a resumption of the former residence, will not be an abandonment." Scholfield, J., Kreitz v. Behrensmeyer (1888), 125 111., 141, 195. "A temporary residence does not change its character by lapse of time." Park, J., Easterly v. Goodwin (1868), 35 Conn., 279, 286. "A man who has a domicile in Indiana 260 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. * does not lose it by going to Colorado and engaging in business there, nor by forming an intention that he will ultimately make that his residence ; an intention to change residence at some future time is not a present change of residence." Bicknell, C C, Astley v. Capron (1883),89Ind., 167, 177. Evidence that a person had transacted business in another State for two years is insufficient to show that a domicile has been estab- lished in the absence of declarations of such an intention or evidence of the exercise of political rights, payment of personal taxes, or selec- tion of a place of residence or business. Tuttle y. Wood (1902), 115 Iowa, 507. Continuous, uninterrupted declarations, accompanied by the fact of residence, the removal of personal property, and the exer- cise of political rights establish a change of domicil. Marks v. Germania Savings Bank (1903), 110 La., 659. For the various indicia of the animus manendi, see American Notes, by J. B. Moore, in Dicey on the Conflict of Laws, page 165 ; and for the application of the rules of domicil in State courts see brief digests in 48 Ameri- can State Reports, 711 note; 59 American Decisions, 111 note; 32 id., 427 note; 2 Lawyers' Beports, Annotated, 203 note, and 13 id., 161 note. RELINQUISHMENT OF CITIZENSHIP. The right to relinquish citizenship of one State by acquiring it in another is recognized in the rules of domicile. "Allegiance to the State may be renounced by a change of residence." California, Polit. Code, sec. 56; Montana, Polit. Code, sec. 82; North Dakota, Polit.. Code, sec. 15. In the statutes of Virginia is found the following pro- vision : " Whenever a citizen of this State, by deed in writing, exe- cuted in the presence 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." It is further provided that when any " citizen of this State, being twenty-one years of age, shall reside elsewhere, 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 sub- ject of a foreign state or sovereign, be deemed a citizen of this State." But no such relinquishment of citizenship can be accomplished while the United States is at war with a foreign power. (Code (1904 by Pollard), sees. 40-42.) These provisions are found in substantially the same terms in the statutes of Kentucky (Stats. ; by Carroll (1903), sec. 333.) The statutes of Georgia likewise contain an express decla- ration on the right of expatriation with a view to become a citizen of another State or of a foreign power. (Civil Code (1895), sees. 1805-7.) In the Civil Code (art. 46) of Louisiana it is provided that a " vol- untary absence of two years from the State, or the acquisition of residence in any other State of this Union or elsewhere, shall forfeit a domicile within this State." It has been held that civil as well as political domicil is forfeited by this voluntary absence. Interdic- CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 261 tion of Dumas (1880) , 32 La. Ann., 679. The principle that a native domicil, in case the new domicil has been acquired merely by resi- dence without a renunciation of the original allegiance, reverts as soon as the person begins to execute an intention of returning, i. e., from the time that he puts himself in motion bona fide to quit the country sine animo revertendi, has no application . as between the States of the Union where both the native and acquired domicil are under the same national jurisdiction. Park, J., First National Bank v. Balcom (1868), 35 Conn., 351, 357. ELECTORS. It was said by Mr. Justice McLean, in Shelton v. Tiffin (1848), 6 How., 163, 185, that " on a change of domicil from one State to an- other, citizenship may depend upon the intention of the individual. But this intention may be shown more satisfactorily by acts than decla- rations. An exercise of the right of suffrage is conclusive on the subject ; but acquiring a right of suffrage, accompanied by acts which show a permanent location, unexplained, may be sufficient." 11 Minimum periods are prescribed by the States during which a person must have resided therein to be entitled to exercise the privilege of the elective franchise. 6 In Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Ore- » See also opinion of Mr. Justice Curtis in Scott v. Sandford, 19 How., 393, 581. That voting is not conclusive as to domicil, see the leading case of Easterly v. Goodwin (1868), 35 Conn., 279. 6 Alabama, 2 years, Const. (1901), Art. VIII, sec. 178; Arkansas, 12 months, Const., Art. XXI, as amended (1893) ; California, 1 year, Const., Art. II, sec. 1, as amended (1894) ; Colorado, 12 months, Const., Art. VII, as amended (1902) ; Connecticut, 1 year, Const., Art. VIII of amendments (1845) ; Delaware, 1 year, Const. (1897), Art. V, sec. 2; Florida, 1 year, Const., Art. VI, sec. 1, as amended (1894) ; Georgia, 1 year, Const. (1877), Art. II, sec. 1, par. 2; Idaho, 6 months, Const., Art. VI, sec. 2, as amended (1896) ; Illinois, 1 year, Const. (1870), Art. VII, sec. 1; Indiana, 6 months, Const, Art. II, sec. 2, as amended (1881); Iowa, 6 months, Const., Art. II, sec. 1. as amended (1868) ; Kansas, 6 months, Const. (1859), Art. V, sec. 1; Kentucky, 1 year, Const. (1891), sec. 145; Louisiana, 2 years, Const. (3898), Art. 197, sec. 1; Maine, 3 months, Const. (1819), Art. II, sec. 1; Maryland, 1 year, Const. (1867), Art. I, sec. 1; Massa- chusetts, 1 year, Const, Art. Ill of amendments (1821), Rev. Laws (1902), ch. 134, sec. 1; Michigan, 6 months, Const., Art. VII, sec. 1, as amended (1894) ; Minnesota. 6 months, Const, Art. VII, sec. 1, as amended (1896) ; Mississippi, 2 years, Const. (1890), sec. 241; Missouri, 1 year, Const. (1875), Art. VIII, sec. 2; Montana, 1 year, Const. (1889), Art. IX, sec. 2; Nebraska, 6 months, Const. (1875), Art. VII, sec. 1; Nevada, 6 months, Const., Art. II, sec. 1, as amended (1880) ; New Hampshire, see Const, Art. II, Bill of Rights, Art. 27, pt. 2, and Pub. Stats., ch. 31, where no specific time is prescribed ; New Jersey, 1 year, Const. (1844), Art. II, sec. 1; New York, 1 year, Const. (1894), Art. II, sec. 1; North Carolina, 2 years, Const. Art. VI, sec. 2, as amended (1902) ; North Dakota, 1 year, Const (1889), Art. II of amendments; Ohio, 1 year, Const. (1851), Art. V, sec. 1; Oregon, 6 months, Const. (1857), Art. II, sec. 2; Penn- sylvania, 1 year (a person having previously been an elector or native-born citizen of the State, who has removed therefrom and returned, 6 months), Const, Art. VIII, sec. 1, as amended (1901) : Rhode Island, 2 years (owners of real property, 1 year), Const. (1842), Art. II, sec. 1, Art. VII of amendments (1888) ; South Carolina, 2 years (ministers, and teachers of public schools, 6 months), Const. (1895), Art. II, sec. 4; South Dakota, 6 months, Const. (1889), Art. VII, sec. 1; Tennessee, 12 months, 'Const (1870), Art. IV, sec. 1; Texas, 1 year, Const, Art. VI, sec. 2; Utah, 1 year, Const. (1895), Art. IV. sec. 2: Vermont, 1 year, Const. (1793), ch. 2, sec. 39, Stats. (1894), sec. 61; Virginia, 2 years, Const. (1902), Art. II, sec. 18; Washington, 1 year, Const, Art. VI, sec. 1, as amended (1896); West Virginia, 1 year, Const. (1872), Art. IV. sec. 1: Wisconsin, 1 year, Const., Art. Ill, sec. 1, as amended (1882) ; Wyoming, 1 year, Const. (1889), Art. VI, sec. 2. 262 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. gon, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin persons who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States are intrusted with the privilege. It has been held in the courts of Wisconsin and Louisiana that a person who, by the constitution of the State, is an elector may be a citizen thereof although not a citizen of the United States. In re Wehlitz (1863), 16 Wis., 443; ex rel. Dist. Att. v. Fowler (1889), 41 La. Ann., 380. In the latter case it was said by McEnery, J., "A person may be a citizen of the State, and may not be invested with electoral power. It is, however, difficult to conceive how a person can be an elector and not a citizen of the community in which he exercises the right to vote. The State, in the exercise of its sov- ereignty can confer the right to vote, can make an alien an elector, and electoral power when thus bestowed and exercised becomes one of the most important duties and the highest and proudest privilege of citi- zenship. The elector is, therefore, one of the sovereign people, a member of the civil State, and entitled to all its privileges." See also Settegast v. Schrimpf (1871-72), 35 Tex., 323, 342. The former constitution (1875) of Alabama expressly declared that all persons resident in the State, born in the United States, or naturalized, or who had legally declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, were citizens of the State, with equal civil and political rights (Art. I, sec. 2). On the other hand, it has been decided in the circuit court of appeals that, as regards jurisdiction of Federal courts, a person who has merely declared his intention to become a citizen is an alien, although he has voted for Members of Congress and State and county officers conformably with the constitution and laws of the State wherein he resides. City of Minneapolis v. Reum (1893), 56 Fed. Rep., 576. So, also, Mr. Justice Miller, sitting in circuit, in the case of Lanz v. Ran- dall (1876), 4 Dill., 425, 429, said: " I am of opinion that no State can make the subject of a foreign prince a citizen of the State in any other mode than that provided by the naturalization laws of Con- gress; that when the Constitution (Art. I, sec. 8), says that Congress shall have power ' to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States,' it designed these rules, when established, to be the only rules by which a citizen or subject of a foreign government could become a citizen or subject of one of the States of this Union, and thereby owe allegiance to such State, and to the United States, and cease to owe it to his former government." It is not doubted that a State may invest any person within its jurisdiction with all the rights and privileges incident to citizenship. The fundamental rights as incorporated in the bills of rights in the constitutions of the States are, in main, guaranteed to all persons. The last substantial property right usually to be accorded to a per- son of foreign nationality is the right unqualifiedly to acquire, hold, and dispose of real estate. By constitutional guarantee in Alabama (Art. I, sec. 34), Arkansas (Art. II, sec. 20), Colorado (Art. II, sec. 27), Florida (Dec. of Rights, sec. 18), Iowa (Art. I, sec. 22), Michigan (Art. XVIII, sec. 13), Nebraska (Art. I, sec. 25), Nevada (Art. I, sec. 16), Oregon (white foreigners, Art. I, sec. 31; Art. XV, sec. 8), South Dakota (Art. VI, sec. 14), West Virginia (Art. II, CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 263 sec. 5) , Wisconsin (Art. I, sec. 15) , and Wyoming (Art. I, sec. 29) a resi- dent alien, not an enemy, has the same rights in respect of possession, enjoyment, and descent of real estate as citizens. In other States this equality is secured by statute." Exhibit A. CALIFORNIA. Sec. 50. Who are the people. — The people, as a political body, consist : 1. Of citizens who are electors. 2. Of citizens not electors. Sec. 51. Who are citizens. — The citizens of the State are : 1. All persons born in this State and residing within it, except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls. 2. All persons born out of this State who are citizens of the United States and residing within this State. Sec. 52. Residence, rules for determining. — Every person has, in law, a resi- dence. In determining the place of residence the following rules are to be observed : 1. It is the place where one remains when not called elsewhere for labor or other special or temporary purpose, and to which he returns in seasons of repose. 2. There can only be one residence. 3. A residence can not be lost until another is gained. 4. The residence of the father during his life, and after his death, the resi- dence of the mother, while she remains unmarried, is the residence of the un- married minor child. 5. The residence of the husband is the residence of the wife. 6. The residence of an unmarried minor who has a parent living can not be changed by either his own act or that of his guardian. 7. The residence can be changed only by the union of act and intent. Sec 54. All persons within the State subject to its jurisdiction. — Every per- son while within this State is subject to its jurisdiction and entitled to its protection. Sec. 55. Allegiance. — Allegiance is the obligation of fidelity and obedience which every citizen owes to the State. Sec 56. Allegiance may be renounced. — Allegiance may be renounced by a change of residence. Sec 57. 1'ersons not citizens. — Persons in the State not its citizens are either : 1. Citizens of other States ; or 2. Aliens. Sec 58. Eligibility to office. — Every elector is eligible to the office for which he is an elector, except where otherwise specially provided ; and no person is eligible who is not such an elector, except when otherwise specially provided. Sec. 59. Rights and duties of citizens not electors. — An elector has no rights or duties beyond those of a citizen not an elector, except the right and duty of holding and electing to office. Sec 60. Rights and duties of citizens of other States. — A citizen of the United States, who is not a citizen of this State, has the same rights and duties as a citizen of this State not an elector. — Political Code, Part I, Titles II and III. a Connecticut (Gen. Laws (1902), sec. 4410), Georgia (Civil Code (1895), sec. 1816), Maine (Rev. Stats. (1903), ch. 75, sec. 2), Maryland (Pub. Gen. Laws (1904), Art. Ill), Massachusetts (Rev. Laws (1902), ch. 134, sec. 1), Mississippi (Code (1892), sec. 2439), New Hampshire (Pub. Stats., ch. 137, sec. 16), New Jersey (Rev. Stats., p. 6; Gen. Laws, vol. I, p. 23), North Carolina (Revisal of 1905, sees. 182, 183, 1692), North Dakota (Civil Code, sees. 170, 794), Ohio (Bates's Annotated Stats., sec. 4173), Rhode Island (Gen. Laws (1896), ch. 201, sec. 4), Tennessee (Code by Shannon, see. 3659), Texas (Rev. Stats. (1895), Art. 10), Virginia (Code (1904, by Pollard), sec. 43). 264 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. GEORGIA. All citizens of the United States, resident in this State, are hereby declared citizens of this State; and it shall be the duty of the general assembly to enact such laws as will protect them in the full enjoyment of the lights, privileges, and immunities due to such citizenship. — Constitution (1877), Art. I, sec. 1, par. 25. Sec. 1803 (1652). Division, of natural persons. — Natural persons are dis- tinguished, according to their rights and status, into : 1, citizens ; 2, residents not citizens ; 3, aliens ; 4, persons of color. Sec. 1804 (44). Who are citizens. — All citizens of the United States, resi- dent in this State, are hereby declared citizens of this State. Sec. 1805 (46). Citizenship may be renounced. — Except in time of war, every citizen shall have the right of expatriation, with a view to become a citizen of another State or country not a part of the United States with which this State is at peace. The declaration or avowal of such intention, accom- panied by actual removal, is held a renunciation of all his rights and duties as a citizen. Sec 1806 (47). When citizenship ceases. — Until citizenship is acquired else- where, the person continues a citizen of Georgia and of the United States. Sec. 1807 (48). Citizenship again acquired.- — If a person, having been thus expatriated, acquires citizenship under some foreign power, he and his descend- ants, who go with him for the purpose of residence, can be citizens of this State again Only after' a residence and taking the oath of allegiance, as in case of other foreigners. Sec. 1808 (1G54). Rights of. — Among the' rights of citizens are the enjoyment of personal security, of personal liberty, private property, and the disposition thereof, the elective franchise, the right to hold office unless disqualified by the Constitution and laws, to appeal to the courts, to testify as a witness, to perform any civil function, and to keep and bear arms. Sec. 1809 (1655). Exercise thereof. — All citizens are entitled to exercise all their rights as such, unless specially prohibited by law. Sec 1810 (1656). Females. — Females are not entitled to the privilege of the elective franchise ; nor can they hold any civil office or perform any civil func- tions, unless specially authorized by law ; nor are they required to discharge any military, jury, police, patrol, or road duty. Sec 1811 (1657). Minors. — The law prescribes certain ages at which persons shall be considered of sufficient maturity to discharge certain civil functions, to make contracts, and to dispose of property. Prior to those ages they are minors, and are for that disability unable to exercise these rights as citizens. Sec 1812 (1658). Insane persuns. — All persons non compos mentis, either from birth or from subsequent causes, constantly or periodically, cr from age, infirmity, drunkenness, or otherwise incapable of managing their affairs, have their persons and estates, or either of them, placed in the control of guardians. Such persons retain all the rights of citizens which they have the capacity to enjoy, and which are compatible with their situation. Sec 1813 (1659). Rights of citizens of the United States. — Such citizens of the other States of this Union as are recognized as citizens of the United States by the Constitution thereof shall be entitled, while residents of this State, to all the rights of citizens thereof, except the elective franchise and the right to hold office, and to perform such civil functions as are confined by law to citizens of this State.— Code (1896), sees. 1803-1813. KENTUCKY. Sec 332. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and who reside in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, shall be deemed citizens thereof. Sec 333. Whensoever any citizen of this State, by deed in writing in the presence of and subscribed by two witnesses, and acknowledged or proved in the county court of the county in which he resides, or by open declaration made in such court and entered of record, shall declare that he relinquishes the char- acter of a citizen of this State, and shall depart out of the same with the inten- tion, in good faith, to remain absent therefrom, such person shall, from the time of his departure, be considered as having exercised his right of expatri- CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 265 ation so far as regards this State, and shall not thenceforth be deemed a citizen thereof. When any citizen of this State shall reside elsewhere and, in good faith, become a 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. No act of any citizen under this section shall have any effect if done while the United States shall be at war with a foreign power. — Chap. 19, Articles I and II, sees. 332 and 333, Kentucky Statutes by Carroll (1903). MAINE. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the juris- diction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.— Revised Statutes (1903), ch. 5, sec. 1. MASSACHUSETTS. All persons who are citizens of the United States and who are domiciled in this Commonwealth are citizens thereof. — Revised Laws, 1902, ch. 1, sec. 1. MISSISSIPPI. Section 8. All persons resident in this State, citizens of the United States, are hereby declared citizens of the State of Mississippi. — Constitution (1890), Art. Ill, sec. 8. MONTANA. Sec. 70. The people, as a politicel body, consist : 1. Of electors. 2. Of citizens not electors. Sec 71. The citizens of the State are : 1. All persons born in this State and residing within it, except the children of transient aliens. 2. All persons born out of this State who are citizens of the United States and residing within this State. Sec. 72. Every person has, in law, a residence. In determining the place of residence the following rules are to be observed: 1. It is the place where one remains when not called elsewhere for labor or other special or temporary purpose, and to which he returns in seasons of repose. 2. There can only be one residence. 3. A residence can not be lost until another is gained. 4. The residence of the father during his life, and after his death the resi- dence of the mother, while she remains unmarried, is the residence of the unmarried minor children. 5. The residence of the husband is presumptively the residence of the wife. 6. The residence of an unmarried minor, who has a parent living, can not be changed by either his own act or that of his guardian. 7. The residence can be changed only by the union of act and intent. Sec. 80. Every person while within the jurisdiction of this State is entitled to its protection. Sec. 81. Allegiance is the obligation of fidelity and obedience which every citizen owes to the State. Sec 82. Allegiance may be renounced by a change of residence. Sec 83. Persons in the State not its citizens are either : 1. Citizens of other States ; or 2. Aliens. Sec. 84. Every elector is eligible to the office for which he is an elector, except where otherwise specially provided. Sec. 85. An elector has no rights or duties beyond those of a citizen not an elector, except the right and duty of holding and electing to office. Sec. 86. A citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of this State has the same rights and duties as a citizen of this State not an elector. — Political Code, sees. 70, 71, 72, 80 to 86. 266 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. NORTH DAKOTA. Sec. 10. Who are the people. — The people, as a political body, consist : 1. Of citizens who are electors. 2. Of citizens not electors. Sec. 11. Who are citizens. — The citizens of the State are : 1. All persons born in this State and residing within it, except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls. 2. All persons born out of this State and who are citizens of the United States and residing within this State. Sec. 12. Residence, rules for determining. — Every person has in law a res- idence. In determining the place of residence the following rules are to be observed : 1. It is the place where one remains when not called elsewhere for labor or other special or temporary purpose, and to which he returns in seasons of repose ; 2.' There can be only one residence ; 3. A residence can not be lost until another is gained ; 4. The residence of the father during his life, and after his death the resi- dence of the mother, while she remains unmarried, is the residence of the unmarried minor children ; 5. The residence of the husband is presumptively the residence of the wife ; 6. The residence of an unmarried minor who has a parent living can not be changed by either his own act or that of his guardian ; 7. The residence can be changed only by the union of act and intent. Sec. 13. All persons within the State subject to Us jurisdiction. Every per- son while within this State is subject to its jurisdiction and entitled to its protection. , Sec. 14. Allegiance. — Allegiance is the obligation of fidelity and obedience which every citizen owes to the State. Sec. 15. Allegiance may be renounced. — Allegiance may be renounced by a change of residence. Sec. 16. Persons not citizens. — Persons in this State not its citizens are either — 1. Citizens of other States ; or, 2. Aliens. Sec. 17. Elgibility to office. — Every elector is eligible to the office for which he is an elector, except when otherwise specially provided ; and no person is eligible who is not such an elector. Sec. 18. Bights and duties of citizens not electors. — An elector has no rights or duties beyond those of a citizen not an elector, except the right and duty of holding and electing to office. Sec. 19. Rights and duties of citizens of other States. — A citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of this State has the same rights and duties as a citizen of this State not an elector. — Political Code, sees. 10-19. (Revision of 1905.) VERMONT. Sec. 60. Citizens of the United States and persons who have become citizens of this State by virtue of the constitution or laws are, while residing in the State,, citizens thereof. — Vermont statutes (1894), sec. 60. Sec. 899. In cases proper for the cognizance of the civil authority and the courts of judicature in this State, citizens of the United States shall be equally entitled to the privileges of law and justice with citizens of this State.— Ver- mont statutes (1894), sec. S99. VIRGINIA. Sec. 39. Who are citizens. — All persons born in this State, all persons born in any other State of this Union, who may be or become residents of this State; all aliens naturalized under the laws of the United States, who may be or become residents of this State ; all persons who have obtained a right to citi- zenship 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 birth of such children, shall be deemed citizens of this State. Sec. 40. How citizenship relinquished. — Whenever a citizen of this State, by deed in writing, executed in the presence of and subscribed by two witnesses, CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 267 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. Seo. 41. When suspended. — When any citizen of this State, being twenty-one years of age, shall reside elsewhere, 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. Sec. 42. When relinquishment not allowed. — No such act of becoming the cit- izen or subject of a foreign State or sovereign, and no act under section forty shall have any effect, if done while this State, or the United States, shall be at war with any foreign power. — Code of Virginia (1904, by Pollard), sees. 39-42; Code 1849, ch. 3, sees. 1, 3, and 4. WEST VIRGINIA. The powers of government reside in all the citizens of the State and can be rightfully exercised only in accordance with their will and appointment. All persons residing in this State, born, or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, shall be citizens of this State. Every citizen shall be entitled to equal representation in the government, and, in all apportionments of representation, equality of numbers of those entitled thereto, shall, as far as practicable, be preserved. — Constitution (1872), Art. II, sees. 2, 3, and 4. Appendix III. LAWS OE FOREIGN COUNTRIES. CONTENTS. Circular instruction of July 9, 1906 ._._' 270 Argentine Republic 271 Austria-Hungarv „ 273 Belgium .". 280 Bolivia 287 Brazil 288 Chile 290 China 291 Colombia 292 Coeta Bica 294 Cuba 298 Denmark 305 Danish West Indies 308 Dominican Republic 310 Ecuador 313 France 315 Colonies and possessions 321 German Empire . 326 Great Britain and certain colonies and possessions 333 Australia 362 Bahamas 364 Barbados 368 Bermuda 369 British Guiana 377 British Honduras 382 Canada 386 Cape of Good Hope 408 Hongkong 411 India 413 Malta 416 Natal 417 Newfoundland 421 NewZeland 423 Greece 427 Guatemala 429 Haiti 435 Honduras 437 Italy 440 Japan 444 Liberia 448 Mexico 450 Morroco 459 Netherlands 460 Nicaragua 467 269 270 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. Page. Norway 470 Panama ■ 479 Paraguay 480 Peru 481 Persia 484 Portugal 486 Koumania 490 Russia 492 Salvador 499 Servia 507 Siam _ 509 Spain 509 Sweden 512 Switzerland 516 Turkey 525 Bulgaria 532 Uruguay 533 Venezuela 534 circular instruction. Department of State, Washington, July 9, 1906. To the diplomatic and certain consular officers of the United States. Gentlemen : I append hereto a copy of an order a of the Depart- ment of State, dated July 3, constituting James B. Scott, esq., Solic- itor for the Department of State, David Jayne Hill, esq., this Gov- ernment's minister to the Netherlands, and Gaillard Hunt, esq., chief of the passport bureau of this Department, a board to inquire into the laws and practice regarding citizenship, expatriation, and pro- tection abroad and to report thereon before December next. The board desires to ascertain : 1. The laws relating to citizenship in the country in which you reside ; ' 2. The means by which citizenship in that country is lost ; 3. Whether or not the law of that country authorizes the renuncia- tion of citizenship, and, if so, the conditions for the reacquisition of the citizenship thus renounced; 4. Whether, and how far, residence in foreign parts may affect the citizenship of origin ; 5. And, finally, the practice of the Government to which you are accredited in protecting its citizens permanently residing in other countries. The law relating to naturalization and the acquisition of citizen- ship is also desired. In answering this instruction you may furnish publications and appropriate references to them, together with transcripts from the laws and other recognized authorities. You will reply to this instruction at the earliest practicable moment. I am, gentlemen, your obedient servant, Robert Bacon, Acting Secretary. a See supra p. 4. citizenship of the united states, expatriation, etc. 27l Argentine Republic, constitution." [Translation.] Aht. 8. The citizens of each province enjoy in the other provinces all the rights, privileges, and immunities inherent in citizenship. * * * Art. 20. Foreigners shall enjoy in the territory of the nation all the civil rights of citizens. They may carry on their industry, commerce, or profession, own real estate, buy and sell it, navigate the rivers and coasts, exercise their religion freely, make wills, and marry, all in con- formity with the laws. They are not obliged to acquire citizenship, nor to pay extraordinary compulsory taxes. They may become natu- ralized by residing two years continuously in the nation, but the authorities may curtail this period in favor of one who requests it on the strength of services proven to have been rendered to the Republic. Art. 21. Every Argentine citizen is obliged to bear arms in defense of the country and of this constitution, in conformity with the laws enacted for this purpose by Congress and with the decrees of the national executive. Naturalized citizens are free to perform this service or not during a period of ten years from the date on which they obtain their citizenship papers. Art. 67. The Congress shall have power: * * * * * * * 11. To enact * * * general laws for the whole nation regard- ing naturalization and citizenship, based on the principle of citizen- ship by nativity. * * * Art. 108. The provinces shall .not * * * pass especially laws on citizenship and naturalization. * * * [Enclosure in despatch from Mr. BeauprS, minister to Argentine Republic, No. 441, November 3, 1906. — Translation.]" LAW OF 1869. Law No. 34-6 of October 8 on Citizenship. The Senate and Chamber of Deputies. Title I. — Argentines. Art. 1. The following are Argentines: 1. All persons born or who may be born in the territory of the Republic, whatever be the nationality of their parents, with the excep- tion of the children of foreign ministers and members of legations residing in the Republic. 2. The children of native Argentines who having been born in a foreign country choose the citizenship of origin. 3. Persons who are born in the legations and on the warships of the Republic. oText as printed in C6digos y Leyes Usuales de la Republica Argentina (Buenos Aires, 1894), p. 1. 272 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 4. Persons who were born in the Republics which formed a part of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata before their emanci- pation, and who have resided in the territory of the nation, provided they declare their desire to be Argentines. 5. Persons who are born on neutral seas under the Argentine flag. Title 2. — Citizens by naturalisation. Art. 2. The following are citizens by naturalization : 1. Foreigners over eighteen years of age who reside two years continuously in the Republic and declare their desire to be such before the federal district judges. 2. Foreigners who, Whatever be the period of their residence, prove before the said judges either of the following services : 1. Having honorably held offices under the nation or the provinces, within or without the Republic. 2. Having served in the army or navy or having taken part in any warlike action in the defense of the nation; 3. Having established in the country a new industry or introduced a useful invention. 4. Operating or constructing railroads in any of the provinces. 5. Forming a part of colonies already established or which may be established in future, whether in national territory or in that of the provinces, provided they possess some real estate therein. 6. Settling or peopling national territory within or without the present boundary lines. 7. Having married an Argentine woman in any one of the prov- inces. 8. Practicing therein the vocation of teacher in any branch of education or industry. Art. 3. The son of a naturalized citizen who was a minor at the time of the naturalization of his father and was born in a foreign country, may obtain his citizenship papers from the federal judge by virtue oi having enlisted in . the national guard at the period prescribed by law. Art. 4. The son of a citizen who is naturalized in a foreign country may, after the naturalization of his father, obtain his citizenship papers by coming to the Republic and enlisting in the national guard at the age prescribed by law. Title 3. — Procedure and requirements for obtaining citizenship papers. Art. 5. The children of native Argentines, born abroad, who choose the citizenship of origin, must prove before the proper federal judge that they are the children of Argentines. Art. 6. Foreigners who have fulfilled the conditions mentioned in the preceding articles shall obtain naturalization papers, which shall be granted them by the federal district judge to whom they have applied therefor. Title 4. — The political rights of Argentines. Art. 7. Argentines who have attained the age of 18 years enjoy all the political rights conferred by the constitution and the laws of the Republic. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 273 Art. 8. Political rights shall not be exercised in the Eepublic by persons naturalized in a foreign country, by persons who have ac- cepted office or honors from foreign governments without the per- mission of congress, by fraudulent bankrupts, or by persons who have received a sentence imposing an infamous penalty or the penalty of death. Art. 9. Congress alone can grant rehabilitation to those who have lost the rights of citizenship. Title 5. — General provisions. Art. 10. No charge shall be made for citizenship papers or for per- forming any of the formalities connected with obtaining them. Art. 11. The ministry of the interior shall send to all the district judges a sufficient number of printed copies of " citizenship papers," so that they may be issued under one and the same form. Title 6. — Transitory provisions. Art. 12. The children of a native-born Argentine and foreigners who are at present exercising the rights of Argentine citizenship are considered as native-born or naturalized citizens, respectively, without being subjected to any of the requirements established by this law, and having only to inscribe themselves in the National Civic Eegister. Art. 13. All provisions contrary to the present law are hereby repealed. Art. 14. Let the foregoing be communicated to the Executive. Buenos Aires, October 1, 1869. A true copy. Jtjan S. Gomez. Austria-Hungary. AUSTRIA. GENERAL CIVIL CODE. [Translation.] Sec. 28. The full enjoyment of civil rights is acquired by virtue of citizenship. Citizenship in these hereditary States is inherent in the children of an Austrian citizen by virtue of birth. * * * Sec. 29. Foreigners acquire Austrian citizenship by entering the public service; [by engaging in an industry the carrying on of which necessitates a regular domicile in the country;] by an uninterrupted residence of ten years in these States, provided the foreigner has not incurred punishment for any crime during this period. [Note.] — "All citizens are equally eligible to public offices. Foreigners must acquire Austrian citizenship in order to hold such offices."— St. G. G. v. 21 Dec, 1807. Nr. 142 R. G. B., art. 3. " The provision of sec. 29, according to which foreigners acquire Austrian citizenship by engaging in an industry the carrying on of which necessitate.- o Edition by Dr. Joseph Baron yon Schey, Vienna (1902). H. Doc. 326, 59-2 18 274 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. a regular domicil in the country is hereby abrogated." — k. Vdg. v. 27 April 18G0, Nr. 108 R. G. B., sec. 1. Austrian citizenship shall be acquired by a foreigner after an uninterrupted residence of ten years "only when he has duly ■ proven such residence to the authorities of his last place of residence, has • taken the oath of allegiance before them or the proper court and has received a certificate as to this fact However, a foreigner shall not be allowed to take this oath until the said authorities have become fully con- vinced that he has not only not incurred any punishment for a crime during the period mentioned, but that he has always observed a quiet and moral behavior, obeyed the laws and orders of the hvaful authorities, and never given good cause for suspicion or complaint by reason of his conduct or way of thinking."— Jhfd. v. 12, April, 1833, Nr. 2597 T. G. S. Foreign women acquire citizenship also by marriage to an Austrian citizen. — Hfd. v. 23, Feb., 1833, Nr. 2595 Y. G. S. Sec. 30. Even without engaging in any industry or trade, and be- fore ten years have elapsed, application for naturalization may be made to the civil authorities, who may grant it upon proof being furnished that the applicant possesses a fortune, or the ability to earn a livelihood, and is of good moral character. Sec. 31. Austrian citizenship shall not be acquired by the mere possession or temporary utilization of a rural estate, house, or land, or by the establishment of a business or factory, or the participation in either, without personal residence in the territory of these States. HUNGARY. Law (L of the year 1879) relating to the acquisition and loss of Hungarian nationality. [Translation.] * § 1. The nationality is one and the same in all the countries of the Hungarian Crown. ACQUISITION OF NATIONALITY. § 2. Hungarian nationality can only be acquired — (1) By descent. (2) By legitimation (per subsequens matrimonium) . (3) By marriage. (4) By naturalization. DESCENT. § 3. Hungarian nationality is acquired through descent by the legitimate children of a Hungarian subject and by the illegitimate children of a woman being a Hungarian subject; in both cases even if the birth takes place abroad. LEGITIMATION. § 4. Hungarian nationality is acquired through legitimation (per subsequens matrimonium) by illegitimate children of a Hungarian subject born of a woman being an alien. a Text as printed in Parliamentary Papers, Misc. No. 3 (1893), p. 4. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 275 MARRIAGE. § 5. Hungarian nationality is acquired through marriage by a woman, being an alien, who becomes married to a Hungarian subject. NATURALIZATION. § 6. Hungarian nationality is acquired by an alien who has obtained firm either of the authorities mentioned in § 11 a certificate of naturalization, or from His Majesty a diploma of naturalization, and who has taken the oath or solemn declaration of Hungarian nationality. § 7. The Hungarian nationalty which has been acquired by a naturalized male alien shall be extended to his wife and those of his children who are minors and under his paternal power (patria potestas) . § 8. Certificate of naturalization for the acquisition of Hungarian nationality can only be obtained by an alien under the following conditions : (1) Provided he is legally empowered to act of his own free will; or, if he is not so legally empowered, provided he has obtained the consent of his lawful representative. (2) Provided he is a member of any home parish community, or if he is in process of becoming so. (3) Provided he has been living in the interior for five years with- out interruption. (4A Provided he has a blameless character. (5) Provided he is possessed of such means, or earns sufficient, to enable him to support himself and family according to the conditions of his place of abode. (6) Providing he has been inscribed on the list of taxpayers for five years. In cases of naturalization of aliens by adoption according to the requirements of the Hungarian laws, the fulfilment of the conditions specified in paragraphs (3), (5), and (6.), of this section is not required, provided that the person adopting such aliens has complied with the requirements contained in paragraphs (5) and (6). § 9. Applications for the acquisition of Hungarian nationality shall be properly furnished with the necessary documents and sub- mitted to the head of that municipality (" Vicegespann, burgo- master ") , or in the military frontier to that district office or town council within the district of which the applicant is domiciled. § 10. The authorities mentioned in § 9 shall examine the applica- tions and documents; shall direct the applicant to furnish the neces- sary papers which might be missing; shall, if any deficiency as regards the form or contents of the papers submitted should make it necessary, make inquiries of the competent authorities, and shall then submit the papers, together with a report thereon, to the minis- ter of the interior, or to the Croatian-Slavonian-Dalmatian Ban, or to the chief authorities of the military frontier, respectively. § 11. Applications for naturlaization according to §§ 8, 9, and 10 from those who are domiciled in Hungary and Fiume shall be de- cided by the minister of the interior ; for those who are domiciled in Croatia-Slavonia, by the Croatian-Slavonian-Dalmatian Ban, and by the chief authorities of the military frontier, respectively, in favour 276 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. of the applicant, and shall in each case give notice thereof to the minister-president for the purpose of record. § 12. In the certificate of naturalization it shall be clearly declared that the naturalized alien has become a Hungarian subject; and the certificate shall, in the case provided in § 7, also contain the names of the wife and children who may be affected by the naturalization. § 13. The authorities mentioned in § 9 shall, after receiving the ■ certificate of naturalization, inform the applicant thereof, appoint- ing at the same time the day on which he will have to take oath (or solemn declaration) of allegiance. § 14. The form, of the oath (or solemn declaration) of allegiance shall be the following: I, , do swear (solemnly declare) before the living God that I will be faithful to His Imperial and Royal Majesty the Apostolic King of Hun- gary and to the constitution of the lands of the Hungarian Crown, and promise that I will faithfully fulfil my duties as a Hungarian subject. § 15. Minutes shall be drawn up of the oath (solemn declaration) sworn (declared) , and it shall be signed by the person who has taken the oath (declaration). The date of the oath (declaration) shall be written on the certificate of naturalization, which shall be signed by the person before whom the oath (declaration) was made, and handed over to the naturalized subject. From this day the naturalized alien shall be deemed to be a Hunga- rian subject ; he shall, however, except the case provided for in § 17, not be able to be a member of the legislature until ten years shall have elapsed since the date of his naturalization. § 16. If the alien in whose favour the certificate of naturalization was issued, and who has been summoned to swear the oath of allegi- ance (declaration), does not take the oath (declaration) within one year from the receipt of the summons, the certificate of naturalization becomes void, and shall be returned, together with the acknowledg- ment of the receipt of the summons, to the authorities which have issued the same. § 17. The ministry can propose to Hig Majesty the naturalization of such aliens as have special and extraordinary merits in regard to the lands of the Hungarian Crown, and are either residing in Hun- gary or declare that they intend to settle in that country. Such persons need not necessarily comply with the conditions of the paragraphs (2), (3), and (6) of § 8. If the alien who has been naturalized according to this clause has not yet applied to any home parish community for incorporation, he shall be deemed to belong temporarily to the community of Buda-Pesth. The above clauses 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 shall also apply to aliens naturalized by royal diploma. § 18. The naturalization does not involve the acquisition of Hunga- rian nobility by the naturalized alien. § 19. As long as their foreign nationality is not proved, all those shall be deemed to be Hungarian subjects — (1) Who were born within the limits of the lands of the Hungarian Crown. (2) Foundlings found in the territories of the Hungarian Crown, and brought up as such within the said territories. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 277 LOSS OF NATIONALITY. § 20. Hungary nationality is lost — (1) By being liberated from allegiance. (2^ By decision of the authorities. (3) By absence. (4) By legitimation. (5) By marriage. LIBERATION FROM ALLEGIANCE. § 21. The cases of liberation shall be decided in time of peace by the minister of the interior for those who belong to Hungary and Fiume, and by the Croatian-Slavonian-Dalmatian Ban, and the chief authorities of the military frontier for those who belong to Croatia, Slavonia, and the military frontier, respectively. If the request for liberation has been acceded to, it shall be declared in the decision that the applicant is freed from allegiance. The minister-president shall be informed of such decisions for the purposes of record. § 22. Those who belong to the army and navy, or to the reserve or the supplementary reserve, can only be liberated from allegiance if they obtain a letter of dismissal from the common minister of war, or from the honved minister if they belong to the honveds (national defence). Those who do not belong to the above military bodies, but are not finally freed from military service, can only be liberated from alle- giance if they have already completed their 17th year of age, and are furnished with a certificate of the municipality to which they belong, to the effect that their application has not the object of liberating themselves from military service. § 23. Exemptions from the provisions contained in § 22 are made in the cases of those who desire to acquire Austrian nationality, if reciprocity is accorded by that State. Such persons can be liberated from allegiance if they furnish evi- dence that they fulfil all the requirements specified in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of § 24. This decision, however, is to be communicated to the imperial and royal Austrian ministry. § 24. Liberation from the allegiance, except for the reasons pro- vided for in § 22, can not in time of peace be refused to anybody — (1) Provided that he is legally empowered to act of his own free will, or that his father consents to it, or that his guardian or curator, with the approval of the board of wards, accedes to his application. (2) Provided that he is in nO arrear with any State or communal taxes. (3) Provided that there is no criminal prosecution against him in the lands of the Hungarian Crown, nor any criminal judgment against him extant and unexecuted. § 25. Application for liberation from allegiance in war time shall, on representation of the ministry in each case, be decided by His Majesty. § 26. Liberation shall be extended to the wife and, so far as the exception according to § 22 has not to take place, to those of the chil- 278 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. dren who are minor and under paternal power, provided that the above persons emigrate together with the applicant. § 27. Applications for liberation from allegiance have to be accom- panied with the necessary documents and to be submitted to the head of the municipality (" vicegespann, burgomaster "), and in the mili- tary frontier to that district office or town council within the terri- tory of which the parish to which the applicant belongs is situated. These authorities shall deal with such applications according to the provisions of § 10. § 28. It shall be clearly expressed in the certificate of liberation that the Hungarian subject is liberated from Hungarian allegiance, and in the case provided for in § 26 the names must be given of the wife and of those children to whom liberation is extended. § 29. On the day of the delivery of the certificate of liberation the Hungarian nationality is lost. The liberation becomes void, however, if any of the impediments provided for in paragraphs (2) and (3) of clause 24 should occur before the emigration, and it becomes also void if the liberated person has not emigrated within one -year from the date of the delivery of the certificate of liberation. § 30. The authorities mentioned in § 11 are empowered to declare the loss of nationality in regard to such persons, belonging to any parish within their jurisdiction, who have without their consent taken service under a foreign State, and have not given up such service upon their demand. Notice of the decisions issued according to this section shall be given in each case to' the minister-president for record. ABSENCE. § 31. Any Hungarian subject who is residing out of the lands of the Hungarian Crown for ten years without interruption, and with- out a commission of the Hungarian Government, or of the common Austro-Hungarian ministers, loses Hungarian nationality. The time of absence begins on the day on which the Hungarian subject has left the boundaries of the territories of the Hungarian Crown without having given notice to the competent authorities mentioned in § 9 of his intention to retain his nationality; and in case of having left with a passport, the absence begins with the last day of the time for which the passport was granted. The continuity of the absence is interrupted by giving notice to the above authorities of the intention of retaining the Hungarian nationality, by procuring a new passport, by obtaining a certificate of domicile from any Austro-Hungarian consular office, or by the entry of the name of the Hungarian subject in the register of any Austro-Hungarian consular community. § 32. The loss in this way of Hungarian nationality shall be ex- tended to the wife living with the Hungarian subject, and to those of his minor children who are under his paternal power. LEGITIMATION. § 33. Illegitimate children lose their Hungarian nationality if legitimized according to the laws of the country to which their alien father belongs, unless the nationality of their father be not acquired CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 279 in virtue of such legitimation, and they continue (after such legiti- mation) to be domiciled within the limits of the lands of the Hun- garian Crown. MARRIAGE. § 34. Any woman who marries an alien loses her Hungarian nationality. § 35. An alien woman who marries a Hungarian subject does not lose her Hungarian nationality by becoming a widow, or by being judicially separated from her husband, or by the dissolution of her marriage. § 36. A Hungarian subject who has assumed foreign nationality shall be deemed to be a Hungarian subject so long and until he has lost his Hungarian nationality according to the provisions of this law. REACQUISITION OF HUNGARIAN NATIONALITY. § 37. Hungarian nationality is reacquired by a woman who has married a foreign subject, and whose marriage has become invali- dated by the competent judicial authorities. REPATRIATION. § 38. Those who have lost their Hungarian nationality and want to be repatriated, have to comply with the requirements for the acquisi- tion of nationality, as above mentioned, provided that the following sections do not constitute exemptions therefrom. § 39. Any Hungarian subject who has lost his nationality by libera- tion or absence, and has not acquired any foreign nationality, can be repatriated even if he has not returned within the limits of the lands of the Hungarian Crown. In this case the repatriated subject will helong to the parish community of which he was formerly a member. § 40. Any Hungarian who has lost his nationality by liberation or absence, and returned within the limits of the lands of the Hungarian Crown, and has become a member of any inland parish community, shall be repatriated at his request. § 41. Any Hungarian woman who has lost her nationality by the liberation of her husband, or by her marrying an alien, if she is judicially separated from her husband, if her marriage becomes dissolved, or she becomes a widow, and if she becomes a member of any home parish community, shall be repatriated at her request. § 42. Any Hungarian of minor age who has lost his Hungarian nationality by the liberation or absence of his father, shall, with the approval of his guardian, be repatriated at his request, provided that his father has died, or if he has come of age according to the laws of the State of which he is a subject, and in both cases if he becomes a member of any inland parish community. § 43. The request for repatriation shall, in the cases provided for in !§ 38, 39, 40, 41, and 4-2, be submitted to those authorities mentioned m § 9 within whose jurisdiction is the parish of which the person to be repatriated is a*member. § 44. The provision of § 15, according to which naturalized Hun- garians can only after ten years become members of the legislature, does not, as a rule, apply to repatriated Hungarians unless the latter have acquired Hungarian nationality by naturalization (§ 6), and ten years have not elapsed since the acquisition of nationality. 280 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. PINAL REGULATIONS. § 45. (Rules as to the form of registers of naturalization and liberations from allegiance to be kept by the authorities.) § 46. Naturalization and liberation from allegiance are not subject to any separate fees or dues, except the regular fees. § 47. Exceptions from this law are to be observed towards those States with which treaties are in force on this subject, in so far as such treaties contain provisions divergent from those of this law. § 48. All laws and regulations contrary to this law are hereby repealed. All those who have been living within the limits of the lands of the Hungarian Crown, even if in different places, at least for five con- secutive years until the day on which this law comes into force, and are entered on the list of taxpayers of any home parish, shall be deemed to be Hungarian subjects, unless they apply within one year from the day this law comes into force to that municipality or, in the military frontier, to that district office or town council within the jurisdiction of which their last domicile is situated, and unless they prove that they have retained their foreign nationality. The ten years fixed in § 31 shall begin for those who left Hungary before the enforcement of this law from the day on which this law is put into force. § 49. The special provisions contained in this law in regard to the military frontier and its authorities have only a provisional character and are in force only until the administration of the military frontier becomes connected with Croatia -Slavonia. § 50. The Government, the Minister of the Interior, the Croatian- Slavonian-Dalmatian Ban, and the authorities of the military fron- tier, respectively, are charged with the execution of the provisions of this law. Belgium. [Enclosures in despatch from Mr. Wilson, minister to Belgium, August 4, 1906.] CIVIL CODE. [Translation.] Article 9. Every person born in France a of a foreigner may claim French nationality within a year following the attainment of his majority provided that if he resides in France he shall declare his intention to establish his domicile there, and that if he resides in a foreign country he shall file a petition to establish his domicile in France, and shall settle there within a year after the date of filing his petition. The declaration may be made upon the attainment of the age of eighteen years, with the father's consent; or, if there be no father, with the mother's consent; or, in the absence of both, with the au- thorization of the other relatives in the ascending line, or of the family, given in conformity with the conditions prescribed for mar- riage in chapter 1, Title V, of Book 1. [o In applying the provisions of the Civil Code, the words " Belgium " and " Belgian " should be substituted for " France " and " French."] CITIZENSHIP OP THE .UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 281 The consent of the father or mother, as well as that of the other relatives in the ascending line, shall be given either verbally at the time of the declaration or in a duly executed document. Special mention of said consent or of the authorization of the family shall be made in the document drawn in evidence of the choice made. Akt. 10. Every child born to a Frenchman in a foreign country is a Frenchman. Every child born in a foreign country to a Frenchman who has lost his French nationality may at any time recover by fulfilling the for- malities prescribed by art. 9 [Civil Code 20]. Art. 12. A foreign woman who has married a Frenchman shall follow the status of her husband [Civil Code, 19]. Art. 17. French nationality shall be lost as follows : 1. By becoming naturalized in a foreign country; 2, a * * *; and 3, finally by settling in a foreign country in any way without intention of returning. Settlements for purposes of trade shall never be considered as being made without intention of returning home. Art. 18. A Frenchman who has lost his French nationality may always recover it on returning to France with the authorization of the Emperor, and by declaring that he desires to settle in France, and that he renounces his claim to any distinction contrary to the French law [Civil Code 20]. Art. 19. A French women who marries a foreigner shall follow the status of her husband. Should she become a widow, she shall recover her French national- ity provided she resides in France or returns thither with the consent of the Emperor, and by declaring her desire to settle there. [Civil Code 20.] Art. 20. Persons who recover French nationality in the cases con- templated in arts. 10, 18, and 19 can not avail themselves thereof until they have fulfilled the conditions imposed by said articles, and then only as far as concerns the exercise of rights which they acquire after that time. CONSTITUTION OP FEBRUARY 7, 1831. [Translation.] Art. 4. Belgian nationality is acquired, retained, and lost accord- ing to the provisions established by the civil law. [Civil Code, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 17 to 20.] The present constitution and other laws relative to political rights determine what, besides such nationality, are the necessary requisites for the exercise of these rights. Art. 5. Naturalization is accorded by the legislative power. Grand (" grande ") naturalization alone places a foreigner on an equality with a Belgian for the exercise of political rights. Art. 133. Foreigners who settled in Belgium before January 1st, 1814, and who have since continued to have their domicile there, are ["Abrogated by law of June 21, 1865.] 282 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. considered as Belgians by birth provided they declare their intention to avail themselves of the benefits of the present provision. The declaration must be made within six months from the date on which the present constitution goes into force, if the persons are of age, and within the year following the attainment of their majority, if they are minors. This declaration shall be made before the provincial authority where the person resides. It may be made in person or by a delegate who shall bear a special and duly executed power of attorney. LAW OF AUGUST 6, 1881, CONCERNING NATURALIZATION. [Translation.] Art. 1. "Ordinary" naturalization confers on a foreigner all the civil and political rights attached to Belgian nationality, with the exception of the political rights for the exercise of which the con- stitution or the laws require "grand" naturalization. Art. 2. In order to obtain " grand " naturalization it is necessary : 1, to have attained the full age of 25 years; 2, to be married or to have one or more children from a marriage ; 3, to have resided in Bel- gium for at least ten years. This latter period shall be five years instead of ten in the case of a foreigner who has married a Belgian woman or who has one or more children from a marriage with a Belgian woman. " Grand " naturalization shall not be granted to unmarried for- eigners or childless widowers until they have attained the age of fifty years and until they have resided fifteen years in the country. It may also be conferred, without any condition, for eminent serv- ices rendered to the nation. Foreigners living in the Kingdom and born in Belgium, who shall have neglected to make the declaration prescribed by art. 9 of the Civil Code, may apply for "grand" naturalization without fulfill- ing the conditions prescribed in sections 1, 2, and 3 of the present article. Art. 3. "Ordinary" naturalization, except in the case contem- plated in art 4, shall be granted only to those who have attained their 21st year and who have resided in Belgium for five years. Art. 4. The naturalization of the father secures to "his minor children the privilege of enjoying the same advantage, provided they declare within the year of their majority, before the municipal au- thority of their place of domicile or residence, in conformity with Art. 8, that it is their intention to avail themselves of the benefits of the present provision. [The declaration may be made at the age of eighteen years by the young persons above referred to, as well as by those who by virtue of any other law in force have the right to elect Belgian nationality on attaining their majority, with the consent of the father, or, failing, the father, with the consent of the mother, or failing both, with the consent of their other ascendant relatives, or of the family, given ac- cording to conditions prescribed regarding marriaee in chap. 1, Title V, book 1 of the Civil Code. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 283 The consent of the father or the mother as well as that of the other ascendant relatives is to be given either verbally at the time of the declaration or in a duly executed document. Special mention of this consent or of the authorization of the family shall be made in the document drawn up in evidence of the act of election.]" 1 The children and the adult descendants of one who has obtained naturalization may obtain the same right without being subjected to the conditions required in articles 2 and 3 of the present law. If the father is deceased, the naturalization of the mother secures to her children or descendants the privileges enumerated in the present article. Art. 5. No one is permitted to become naturalized unless the ap- plication therefor is made in writing. The application must be signed by the applicant or by one holding his power of attorney. In the latter case the power of attorney must be attached to the application. Art. 6. Every application for naturalization, as well as every proposition by the Government having the same object, shall be referred by each house of Parliament to a committee which shall report on the application and the documents thereto annexed. Following the report of the committee each Chamber shall decide, without discussion and in secret session, whether it is proper to take the application or proposition into consideration. If the application is given consideration the Chamber shall immediately proceed to a public discussion and vote. Art. 7. Within eight days after the royal sanction of the vote of the Chambers granting the application the minister of justice shall deliver to the applicant a certified copy of the act of naturalization. Art. 8. The applicant, being in possession of this copy, shall pre- sent himself before the mayor of his place of domicile or residence and shall declare that he accepts the naturalization which has been conferred upon him. A record of this declaration shall be immediately entered in a register kept for this purpose. Art. 9. The declaration prescribed by the preceding article shall be made, under pain of forfeiture, within two months of the date of the royal sanction. Art. 10. Within eight days the municipal authorities shall send a duly certified copy of the act of acceptation to the minister of justice. Art. 11. The act of naturalization shall only be inserted in the official gazette upon presentation of this copy, the date of which shall likewise be inserted. Art. 12. The law of September 27, 1835, is abrogated with the exception of articles 14, 15, and 16. SPECIAL PROVISION. Every person born in Belgium of a foreigner who shall have neglected to make the declaration prescribed by art. 9 of the Civil Code before a competent authority within the year following his majority, or who shall have made a void or insufficient declaration, shall, if he has fulfilled the obligations of the military law in [o Amendment of July 16, 1889.] 284 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. Belgium, be entitled still to make his declaration within a period of two years from the day of the publication of the present law. Art. 4 of the law of April 1, 1879, shall apply to him, as well as to his' children and descendants. EXTRACT FROM NOTE OF BARON DE FAVEREATJ, BELGIAN MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS, TO MR. WILSON, MINISTER TO BELGIUM, AUGUST 2, 1906. [Translation.] In regard to the third question it is to be observed that the Belgian laws contain no provision relative to the voluntary and formal renun- ciation of Belgian nationality. Therefore no conditions for the re- covery of said nationality when lost by renunciation can be stipu- lated. However, the Civil Code, in articles 18, 19, and 20, determines the ordinary conditions for the recovery of Belgian nationality. The authorization to return to the Kingdom, provided for in arti- cles 18 and 19, paragraph 2, is published in the " Moniteur " (Official Gazette) . To question 4 I have the honor to reply to your excellency by call- ing your attention to art. 17 of- the Civil Code, which provides that " Belgian nationality is lost by settling in a foreign country in any manner, without intention of returning." According to established jurisprudence the giving up of the inten- tion to return is never presumed by the law; it must be shown by precise facts, the judgment of which is left to the magistrate. In regard to question No. 5 the official agents of the Belgian Gov- ernment abroad are instructed to lend abundant and willing aid to our compatriots in the defense of their interests. No restriction is made in regard to Belgians definitely and perma- nently established abroad, protection being granted them as long as they preserve their Belgian nationality. MINISTERrAL CIRCULAR OF MAT 15, 1900, CONCERNING THE REGISTRA- TION OF BELGIANS ABROAD, THE KEEPING OF THE REGISTERS, AND THE DELIVERY OF CERTIFICATES AND EXTRACTS. [Translation.] Brussels, May 15, 1900. Sir: Since 1881 the department of foreign affairs has furnished its agents abroad with registers within which to inscribe Belgians who reside within their jurisdiction. These registers, the keeping of which is of incontestable benefit, constitute in some measure a supple" ment to the registers of the population of the Kingdom as provided by the law of June 2, 1856. Besides the privileges which arts. 76, 107, and 117 of the law on consulates and consular jurisdiction of December 31, 1851, connect with registration in non-Christian countries, this registration affords to Belgians who wish to comply with the formality the means of prov- ing whether they desire to retain their nationality and that their CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 285 residence abroad is kept up with an intention of returning. (Art. 17, No. 3, of the Civil Code.) Under many circumstances, moreover, data recorded in the register, while keeping the consuls informed as to the residence and individuality of the persons placed under their jurisdic- tion, facilitate and expedite consular intervention. They may be con- sulted to advantage, either in the issuance of passports (royal decree of June 23, 1857) and the preparation of the documents which the officials of the foreign office stationed abroad are called upon to draw up as registers of births, deaths, etc. (law of Oct. 20, 1897, arts. 1 and 2; royal decree of the 25th of same month), or as notaries public (same law, arts. 3 and 4; Govt, instructions of May 10, 1900), or else in answering the numerous requests for information addressed to the minister of foreign affairs by families and by authorities in the Kingdom. The registration of Belgians in the office of the consulate within whose jurisdiction they reside is therefore exceedingly benefi- cial not only for themselves but also for the Government. _ Consuls shall be governed in this matter by the following instruc- tions, which replace those of August 1, 1881 : Belgians living abroad may, after proving their nationality, be registered in the office of the consular post where they reside. The registration consists in the inscription of the Belgian in a special register, indicating the date of inscription, the Christian and family name of the applicant, his occupation, the place and date of his birth, his civil status (bachelor, married, widower, or divorced), Christian and family name of his father and mother, the place of his last domicile in Belgium or that of his parents, the date of his arrival and his place of residence in the consular district, his previous place of residence, the documents which he has produced in proof of his nationality, the type of his signature, and the Christian and family names and the places and dates of birth of his wife and children, if he has such. The registration of a Belgian in the registry shall be free of charge. The delivery and the viseing of certificates of registration are alone subject to the fees established under Nos. 29 and 30 of the schedule appended to the law of October 22, 1897, namely: No. 29, for the delivery of a certificate of registration, i francs; No. 30, for the viseing of a certificate of registration, 3 francs. It is necessary that the certificates of registration, reciting all the information contained in the registry, be signed by the agent who delivers them, and stamped with the seal of the consulate. The blank form, which you will find further on, may be followed in drawing up these certificates." "Blank form. SPECIAL DECLABATTON. Date of inscription. Full name. Occupa- tion. Place of birth. Date of birth. Bachelor, mar- ried, or wid- ower. Full name of par- ents. Full name of par- ents. Last place of residence in Bel- gium. Date of arrival and place of residence in con- sular dis- trict. Last previous resi- dence. Rftnarks. 286 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. Where the Belgian residents are numerous the register shall be provided with an alphabetical index in order to facilitate consulta- tion. Finally, at the beginning of January of each year the officials of the foreign office abroad shall transmit to the ministry of foreign affairs a copy of the inscriptions made in the register during the preceding year. It is not to be expected that the carrying out of the foregoing instructions will be accompanied with any difficulties; they are formal and do not really need any comment. Nevertheless, I will give a few explanations in order clearly to set forth the intentions of the Government. As you will have observed, Belgians can not be inscribed in the registry until they have proven their nationality. As a rule, Belgian nationality should be proven, as far as possible, by means of authentic documents, such as certified copies of declara- tions of choice of nationality, naturalization certificates, birth and marriage certificates, passports, certificates of discharge from mili- tary service, etc. You will please observe, however, that the per- formance of the military obligations does not necessarily involve Belgian nationality, which can only be acquired according to the rules established by law. If the interested parties do not possess corroborative documents, you will take such precautions as prudence and the circumstances suggest in order to establish their identity and their Belgian nation- ality. I can but reiterate to you in this connection the recommenda- tions already made in the circular of Viscount Vilain XIV of June 24, 1857, regarding the issuance of passports. Whenever any doubt remains in your mind regarding the identity of the applicant, it will be well to require him to make a declaration, preferably in the office and in the presence of two witnesses, and con- taining all the data to be entered in the register. Should you deem it necessary you might, besides, refer the matter to my department, which will make the necessary inquiries of the competent authorities in the Kingdom. Another point to which I wish to call your earnest attention is the purely optional character of the measure of which I have just spoken to you. Although it is expedient that you invite the Belgians resid- ing within your consular jurisdiction to register voluntarily, and that you neglect no opportunity to impress upon them the utility of this formality, nevertheless you must not in any case, in spite of the prac- tical advantages offered by registration, consider yourself authorized to make it obligatory or to refuse your assistance to those of our countrymen who have not registered. In some countries the local authorities require foreigners residing within their territories to furnish proof of their nationality. When, in such cases, Belgians call at the consulate in order to declare there that they possess and wish to retain Belgian nationality, you must not record their declaration in the special registers for the declaration of nationality, the keeping of which forms the subject of the second part of the present document, but you should inscribe the declarants in the register of the consulate, keeping in mind the rules which I have just laid down. As a general rule the exhibition of an extract CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 287 from the last-named register will be 'sufficient for them in order to furnish to the local authorities the proof which the latter require. * * ¥ * * * ' * As it is desirable that the utility of registration be known to all parties concerned, you will please post up on the doors of your office the notice which my department places at your disposal for this pur- pose. This notice invites Belgians residing abroad to register at the consulate within whose jurisdiction they reside. It also calls atten- tion to the fact that consuls are authorized to grant a total or partial remission of the fees established for the delivery or viseing of the certificates of registration. Whenever any person not situated in easy circumstances asks such a favor of you, I can only state that I shall be obliged to you to comply with his request. Please accept, etc., (Signed) P. de Favereau. Bolivia. [Enclosure in despatch from Mr. Sorsby, minister to Bolivia, October 4, 1906.] The minister of foreign affairs to Mr. Sorsby, August 31, 1906. [Translation.] No. 18.] Ministry of Foreign Affairs, La Paz, August SI, 1906. Mr. Minister: In reply to your estimable dispatch of the 22nd instant, in which you request this ministry to furnish you with the laws in force with respect to citizenship, expatriation, and protection of Bolivian citizens abroad, I have to say that the articles of the po- litical constitution in force, promulgated October 28, 1880, and which govern the matter, are as follows : Article 31. The following are Bolivians by birth : 1st. Those born within the territory of the Republic. 2nd. Those born abroad of a Bolivian father or mother in the service of the Republic, or who have emigrated for political causes ; these are Bolivians even in those cases in. which the law imposes the condition of having been born in Bolivian territory. Article 32. The following are also Bolivians : 1st. Children born abroad of a Bolivian father or mother, by the mere fact of settling in Bolivia. 2nd. Foreigners who, harving resided one year in the Republic, declare their desire to settle in Bolivia before the authorities of the municipality in which they reside. 3rd. Foreigners who obtain naturalization papers from the Chamber of Depu- ties as a privilege. Article 33. In order to be a citizen it is necessary : 1st. To be a Bolivian; 2nd. To bo 21 years of age if single, or 18 if married; 3. To be able to read and write and to be possessed of real estate, or an annual income of two hundred bolivianos not derived from services as a domestic servant ; and 4th. To be inscribed in the civil register. Article 34. The rights of citizenship consist: 1. In participation, as elector or elected, in the formation or exercise of the public powers. 2. In being eligible to public offices without any other requisite than fitness, save the exceptions established by this constitution. 288 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. Article 35. The rights of citizenship are lost: 1st. By becoming naturalized in a foreign country ; 2nd. By being sentenced by a competent tribunal to cor- poral punishment until rehabilitation ; 3rd. By making a declaration of fraudu- lent bankruptcy ; and 4th. By accepting employment, office, or decorations from a foreign Government without special permission of the Senate. Article 30. The rights of citizenship are suspended for being sub judice by virtue of a decree of impeachment, or for having been distrained as a debtor to the public treasury after the expiration of the period fixed for payment. With the hope of having complied with your request, I take pleas- ure in renewing the assurances of my high and distinguished con- sideration. Clatjdio Pinilla. To His Excellency Mr. William B. Sorsby, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States. Brazil. [Enclosure In despatch from Mr. Griscom, ambassador to Brazil, October 13, 1906.] The minister for foreign affairs to Mr. Griscom, Octooer 8, 1906. [Translation.] Second section.] Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Rio de Janeiro, Octooer 8, 1906. Mr. Ambassador : I have before me note No. 23 which your excel- lency sent me on August 11 requesting explanations about the laws which regulate the rights of Brazilian citizenship and the way we protect our citizens residing in foreign countries. To the first question formulated in the said note it is my duty to answer that the rights of citizenship are those stated in articles 72 to 78 of the Federal constitution. As to the second question, decree No. 569 of June 7, 1899, says : Art. 1. The rights of Brazilian citizenship are lost to those: Sec. 1. Who become naturalized in a foreign country. (Constitution, art. 71, sec. 2, letter A.) Sec. 2. Who accept any employment or pension from a foreign government without permission of the Federal executive. (Constitution, art. 71, sec. 2, letter B.) * * * * * * * Art. 5. Lose all political rights: * Sec. 1. Brazilians who allege reasons of religious faith in order to dispense with whatever duty the laws of the Republic may by chance impose on its citizens. (Constitution, art. 72, see. 29.) Sec. 2. Brazilians who accept foreign decorations or titles of nobility. (Con- stitution, art. 72, sec. 29.) To the third question, your excellency will find the answer in the said articles 2 and 5, and in addition in numbers 3, 4, and 7 of the above-mentioned decree, which I transcribe below : Art. 3. The national who has lost his citizenship reacquires the rights of Brazilian citizenship when he obtains his reintegration by decree (of the executive), provided he is domiciled in Brazil. Sec. 1. Tn order to accomplish this the petitioner will address a petition to the President of the Republic, through the minister of the interior or of the gov- ernor or president of the State in which he resides. His signature must be duly CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 289 certified and the chief district attorney (procurador geral) of the Republic may give his opinion thereon. Sec. 2. The Brazilian who thus reacquires his nationality will enjoy from that time on all the rights which exclusively belong to Brazilian citizens. Art. 4. The minor children of the national thus reintegrated in his rights are in the same condition as their father, if the law of the country to which they belonged permits the collective result of loss of citizenship. Art. 7. Reacquire political rights : Sec. 1. Brazilians who, having lost their citizenship, should affirm, by a signed statement with two witnesses, before the minister of the interior, governor, or president of the State in which they reside, to be ready to undergo the burdens (duties) imposed on citizens by the laws of the Republic, and from which they were already freed. Sec. 2. Brazilians who have lost their citizenship and who by a like affidavit affirm that they have given up the decoration or title which they had accepted. The communication of the fact must be transmitted to the respective Govern- ment by the regular diplomatic channels. Sec. 3. In either case the Executive, to whom a copy of the affidavit signed before the governor or president of the State shall be transmitted, will issue the decrees confirming the said declarations. In regard to' the fourth question I must tell your excellency that residence in foreign countries does not affect the rights of a native citizen. And as to the last, the Brazilian Government protects its citizens in conformity with the principles established by international law. I have the honor to reiterate to your excellency the assurances of my high consideration. Rio Branco. CONSTITUTION. [Translation.] Title IV. — Brazilian citizens. Section I. — Qualifications of Brazilian citizens. Art. 69. The following are Brazilian citizens : 1. Persons born in Brazil, even though of a foreign father, pro- vided he is not here in the employ of his government. 2. Children of a Brazilian father, and illegitimate children of a Brazilian mother, who are born abroad, provided they establish their domicile in the Republic. 3. Children of a Brazilian father residing in another country in the service of the Republic, even though they do not take up their residence here. 4. All foreigners in Brazil on November 15, 1889, who do not declare their intention to retain their original nationality within six months after the constitution goes into force. 5. Foreigners who own real estate in Brazil, and are married to Brazilian women, or have Brazilian children, provided they reside in Brazil, unless they declare their intention not to change their nationality. 6. All foreigners otherwise naturalized. Art. 70. All citizens 21 years of age who register in the manner prescribed by law are voters. H. Doc. 326, 59-2 19 290 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. Sec. 1. The following persons can not register for either Federal or State elections : 1. Beggars. 2. Illiterates. 3. Enlisted soldiers, except the pupils of military schools for higher instruction. I. Members of monastic orders, societies, congregations, or com- munities of whatsoever denomination, who are subject to a vow of obedience, or to a rule or by-law which implies the surrender of indi- vidual liberty. Sec. 2. Citizens who are not allowed to register are not eligible to office. Akt. 71. The rights of a Brazilian citizen shall only be suspended or lost in the following cases : Sec. 1. They shall be suspended — (a) For physical or moral incapacity; (b) As a result of criminal condemnation, while the sentence lasts. Sec. 2. They are lost — (a) By becoming naturalized in a foreign country ; (i) By accepting employment or pension from a foreign govern- ment without the permission of the federal executive. Sec. 3. The conditions under Avhich the right of Brazilian citizen- ship may be recovered shall be determined by a federal statute. Chile, constitution (1833). [Translation.] Art. 5 (6). The following are Chileans: 1. Those born in the territory of Chile. 2. The children of a Chilean father or mother, born in foreign territory, by the mere fact of their settling in Chile. The children of Chileans, born in foreign territory, if the father is actually in the service of Chile, are Chileans even for the purposes of the funda- mental laws or any other laws which require birth in Chilean terri- tory. 3. Foreigners who, having resided in the Republic one year, declare their desire to settle in Chile before the municipality of the Territory in which they reside, and apply for naturalization papers. 4. Those who have been naturalized as a special favor by the Congress. Art. 6 (7). It shall be the duty of the municipality of the depart- ment in which persons not born in Chile reside to declare whether or not they are entitled to become naturalized in accordance with section 3 of the foregoing article. When the declaration made by the proper municipality is favorable, the President of the Republic shall issue the naturalization papers. Art. 7(8). Chileans who have reached the age of twenty-one years, who can read and write, and who are inscribed in the register of voters of their department, are active citizens entitled to vote. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 291 The said registers shall be public and shall continue for the time determined by law. The inscriptions shall be continuous and shall only be suspended for the period fixed by the law on elections. Art. 8 (10) . Active citizenship, including the right to vote, shall be suspended for the following causes : 1. Physical or moral disability which prevents free and deliberate action. 2. Being employed as a domestic servant. 3. Prosecution for a crime involving corporal or infamous punish- ment. Art. 9 (11). Citizenship is lost for the following causes: 1. Condemnation to corporal or infamous punishment. 2. Fraudulent bankruptcy. 3. Naturalization in a foreign country. 4. Acceptance of employment, office, or pension from a foreign government without special permission from Congress. Persons who have lost their citizenship for any of the causes men- tioned in this article may request rehabilitation from the Senate. China. [Enclosure in despatch from Mr. Coolidge, charge d'affaires, No. 451, November 16, 1906.] Ministers of the Wai Wio Pu to Mr. Coolidge, November 15, 1906. [Translation.] Peking, November 15, 1906. Yodr Excellency: On August 16 we received a note from His Excellency Mr. Uockhill, saying that he had been instructed by cir- cular from his Government to request certain information touching the laws of citizenship in China, particularly respecting six items which were mentioned. This Board at once communicated with Commissioners on Revision of the Code, asking them to investigate and report. We are now in receipt of their reply, saying that the Code of China as yet contains no provisions touching the question of citizenship, but that they were now engaged in an examination of the codes of various countries with a view to the revision of the laws of China, and that after the revi- sion should be completed and promulgated they would inform us so that we might be enabled to communicate to your excellency the facts desired. It becomes our duty, therefore, to send this reply for your excel- lency's information, and in doing so, we avail, etc. Prince of Ch'ing. Na-t'ung. Ch'u Hung-chi. Lien-fa:ng. Tong Shao-i. 292 citizenship of the united states, expatriation, etc. Colombia. ''.' constitution (1886). [Translation.] Title II. — The inhabitants: Citizens and foreigners. Article 8. The following are Colombian citizens : 1. By birth: Natives of Colombia, under one of two conditions, viz, that the father or mother shall also have been a native, or, in the case of children of foreigners, that they shall be domiciled in the Republic. The legitimate children of a Colombian father and mother, who are born in a foreign land and afterwards become domiciled in the Repub- lic, shall be considered as Colombians by birth for the purposes of laws which require this qualification. 2. By origin and residence: Those who, being the children of a mother or father who are natives of Colombia, were born abroad and become domiciled in the Republic; and any Spanish Americans who ask to be registered as Colombians before the municipal authorities of the place where they settle. 3. By adoption : Foreigners who request and obtain naturalization papers. Article 9. The status of a Colombian citizen is lost by acquiring naturaliza- tion papers in a foreign country and establishing domicile therein, and it may be recovered in accordance with the laws. Article 10. It is the duty of all citizens and foreigners in Colombia to live in submission to the constitution and the laws, and to respect and obey the authorities. t Article 11. Foreigners shall enjoy the same rights in Colombia as are granted to Colombians by the laws of the nation to which the foreigner belongs, save the stipulations of public treaties. Article 12. The law shall define the status of domiciled foreigners, and the special rights and obligations of those possessing this status. citizenship of the united states, expatriation, etc. 293 Article 13. A Colombian who is caught bearing arms in a war against Colom- bia shall be tried, and punished as a traitor even though he has lost his citizenship. Foreigners naturalized and domiciled in Colombia shall not be obliged to bear arms against the country of their origin. Article 14. Companies or corporations which are recognized in Colombia as artificial persons shall not have any other rights than those belonging to Colombian persons. Article 15. All male Colombians twenty-one years of age who practice some profession, art, or trade, or have some lawful occupation or other legitimate or known means of support, are citizens. Article 16. Citizenship is lost ipso facto when nationality is lost. Citizens also lose their status as such in the following cases, judici- ally declared : 1. When they have entered the service of a nation at enmity with Colombia. 2. When they have belonged to a faction which has risen against the government of a friendly nation. % 3. When they have been condemned to suffer corporal punishment. 4. When they have been removed from public office by a criminal judgment or one involving liability. 5. When they have committed acts of violence, falsehood, or cor- ruption in elections. Those who have lost their citizenship may ask rehabilitation of the Senate. Article 17. The exercise of the rights of citizenship is suspended for the follow- ing causes : 1. Well-known mental alienation. 2. Judicial interdiction. 3. Habitual drunkenness. 4. Criminal prosecution, as soon as the judge issues a warrant of rrest. : ! Article 18. The status of a citizen entitled to exercise all rights as such is an essential prerequisite to the exercise of the rights of suffrage and to the right to hold public offices which confer authority or jurisdiction. 294 citizenship of the united states, expatbiation, etc. Costa Rica. constitution (1871). [Translation.] Title II. Section First. — Costa Bicans. Art. 4. Costa Bicans are either native or naturalized. Art. 5. Native Costa Ricans are : 1. All persons born in the territory of the Republic, except those who, being the issue of a foreign father or mother, should, under the Jaw, be clothed with foreign nationality of the latter. 2. The children of a Costa Rican father or mother, born outside the territory of the Republic, whose names have been inscribed in the civil register, by their parents during their minority, or by them- selves after reaching full age. 3. The children of a foreign father or mother born in the territory of the Republic who, after having reached the age of twenty-one years, register themselves as Costa Ricans, or were registered as such by their parents before reaching that age. 4. The inhabitants of the Province of Guanacaste who settled within its limits between the date of its annexation to this Republic and the date of the treaty concluded with Nicaragua (April 15.. 1858) shall be native citizens. Art. 6. Naturalized Costa Ricans are: 1. Those who have acquired that quality by virtue of laws hereto- fore enacted. # 2. Foreign women married to Costa Ricans. 3. Persons born in other countries who, after having resided one year in the Republic, obtain naturalization papers. Art. 7. Costa Rican citizenship is lost and recovered for the causes and by the means established by law. Art. 8. Costa Ricans are bound to observe the constitution and the laws, serve their country, defend it, and contribute to the public expenses. Section Second. — Citizens. Art. 9. Costa Rican citizens are all native or naturalized Costa Ricans who have reached twenty years of age, or eighteen years if they are married or are professors of some science; provided in all cases that they own some property, or have an honest trade, the fruits or income of which are sufficient to support them in proportion to their condition of life. Art. 10. The rights of citizenship are suspended, lost, and recov- ered for the causes established by law. Art. 11. Those who having lost their citizenship, except through treason to their country, may be rehabilitated, if sufficient legal grounds are set forth in the application for the favor. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 295 Section Third. — Foreigners. Art. 12. Foreigners enjoy in the territory of the Nation the same civil rights as citizens ; they can exercise their industries or commerce, hold real property, purchase and sell it, navigate the rivers and coasts, freely exercise their religion, dispose of their property by last will and testament, and contract marriage according to law. They are not bound to become citizens, nor to pay forced extraordinary taxes." [Translation.] law ox foreigners and naturalization (of december 21, 1886, pre- pared by the permanent committee and approved by congress in the decree of may 13, 1889, except article 15, which was omitted). Article 1. The following are native Costa Ricans: (1) The legitimate child of a Costa Rican father, whatever be the place of its birth. (2) The illegitimate child of a Costa Rican mother, whatever be the place of its birth. (3) The illigitimate child of a foreign mother, recognized by a. Costa Rican father. (4) A child born or found within the territory of the Republic, its parents or nationality being unknown. (5) The inhabitants of the province of Guanacaste who were per- manently settled there from its incorporation into this Republic (December 9, 1825) up to the treaty of April 15, 1858, concluded with Nicaragua. (6) The children of a foreign father who were born within the national territory, and who, after attaining twenty-one years of age, inscribe themselves of their own accord in the civil registry, or who are inscribed before attaining this age at the instance of their father (or, if there be none, of their mother) . Article 2. Children under 21 years of age, of a Costa Rican father, who have lost their nationality, may, on attaining their major- ity, claim Costa Rican citizenship by making a declaration to this effect before the diplomatic or consular officers of the Republic, if they reside abroad, or before the department of foreign relations if they reside within the national territory. The same shall apply to natural children of a Costa Rican mother who has lost her nationality and who have not been recognized by a foreign father. Article 3. The following are naturalized Costa Ricans : (1) Foreigners who acquire or have acquired Costa Rican citizen- ship according to the law. (2) Costa Ricans who, having lost their nationality, recover it. (3) A foreign woman who marries a Costa Rican, she preserving this nationality even after becoming a widow. "Text as printed in American Constitutions by Rodriguez (1905), I, 326. 296 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. Article 4. The following lose their Costa Bican nationality : (1) Costa Ricans who become naturalized in a foreign country. (2) Those who accept public offices, titles, or decorations conferred by a foreign government, without the consent of their own govern- ment, with the exception of literary, scientific, or humanitarian titles, which may be freely accepted. (3) Those who, without the permission of the government, per- form military service in a foreign nation or enlist in a foreign mili- tary organization. (4) The illegitimate minor son of a Costa Rican mother on being recognized by his foreign father with the consent of the mother. (5) A Costa Rican woman who marries a foreigner, her nationality remaining lost even in widowhood, unless she fails to acquire the nationality of her husband according to the laws of the latter's coun- try, in which case she preserves her own nationality. Article 5. A Costa Rican who has lost his nationality may recover it : (1) If his case is that described under (1) of the foregoing article, by returning to the territory of the Republic if he is abroad, and declaring before the department of foreign relations that he desires to settle in Costa Rica and that he renounces his foreign citizenship. (2) If his case is that of (2), by expressly declaring before the office of foreign relations that he has given up the office, title, or decoration which was conferred on him by the foreign government. (3) If he comes under case (3) of the same article, by soliciting the consent of the government to return to the territory of the Re- public, and, if the government grants this, by returning to Costa Rica in order to fulfill the conditions imposed on foreigners desiring to become naturalized. (4) If his case be that indicated under (4) , by declaring, on attain- ing his majority, before the office cf foreign relations that he chooses Costa Rican citizenship, or by his father inscribing him in the civil register before this age. (5) In case (5) the widow, on the marriage being dissolved, may return to the territory of the Republic and declare before the office of foreign relations that she desires to settle in the Republic, and that she renounces her foreign nationality. Article 6. A change of nationality on the part of the husband dur- ing marriage involves a change of nationality of the wife, if, ac- cording to the laws of the country in which the husband has acquired citizenship, the wife follows the husband's status. Article 7. The rule that a child in utero matris is considered as being born for all intents and purposes favorable to it may be in- voked by a person desirous of acquiring or preserving Costa Rican citizenship. Article 8. Any foreigner may become naturalized in Costa Rica who proves — (1} That he is of age according to the laws of his country ; (2) That he has a profession, trade, or income from which to live; (3) That he has resided at least a year in the Republic and that he has observed good conduct. Article 9. Citizenship papers will not be granted to the citizens or subjects of a nation with which the Republic is at war, nor to those declared judicially in other countries to be pirates, slave traders, in- CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 297 .cendiaries, or counterfeiters of coin or paper money or other docu- ments of public credit, nor to assassins, kidnappers, or robbers. Citizenship acquired fraudulently by a foreigner in violation of the law is ipse jure null and void. Article 10. A foreigner desiring to become naturalized shall apply in person or through a person specially empowered to the office of foreign relations stating his intention to become a Costa Rican citizen and renounce his nationality. This application shall be remitted to the governor of the Province or district where the foreigner has resided, in order that he may ex- amine three or more witnesses regarding the points enumerated in article 8. When the depositions have been taken and returned to the office of foreign relations, the Government shall, provided the inquiry has been favorable to the applicant and there is no legal hindrance, grant the naturalization papers. In the contrary event it shall refuse them. Whatever decision is reached, it shall be published in the official gazette. The provisions of this article do not apply to foreigners who are naturalized by virtue of the law. Neither do they apply to those who have the right to claim or choose Costa Rican citizenship, for whom a simple declaration made before the diplomatic or consular officers of the Republic abroad or before the office of foreign rela- tions will suffice. Article 11. The naturalization of a foreigner becomes null and void by a residence in his native country during two consecutive years, unless such residence is rendered necessary in order to perform some official mission for the Government of Costa Rica, or unless it be by permission of the latter. Article 12. A change of nationality is not retroactive in effect. Article 13. Naturalized citizens have the same rights as natives to the protection of the Government of the Republic. However, if they return to their native country they remain subject to any liabili- ties which they may have incurred before their naturalization. They have the same rights and obligations as native citizens, but they shall be disabled from discharging those offices and employ- ments for which nationality by birth is required according to law. Article 14. Foreigners enjoy the rights specified in article 12 of the Constitution, as well as others which are indicated in treaties with foreign nations. Article 15. (Abolished by law of May 13, 1889.) Article 16. Foreigners are under obligation to contribute toward public expenses in the manner prescribed by the laws, and to obey and respect the institutions, laws, and authorities of the country, submitting to the sentences and judgments of- the courts without being entitled to any other recourse than that granted by the laws to citizens. Appeal may be made through diplomatic channels only in case of a denial of justice or a willful delay in its administration, after all remedies provided by the laws have been exhausted in vain, in the manner prescribed by international law. Article IT. Foreigners do not enjoy the political rights belonging to citizens ; consequently they can neither vote, nor be voted for, for any office subject to popular election; nor can they be appointed to any other office or commission conferring civil or political authority 298 citizenship or the united states, expatriation, etc. or jurisdiction ; nor combine for the purpose of attempting to inter- fere actively in the militant policy of the Republic; nor take any part therein; nor exercise the right of petition in this kind of matters. Article 18. Foreigners are exempt from military service. How- ever, those here domiciled are liable to police service when it is a question of maintaining the safety of property and the preservation of order in the same town in which they reside. Article 19. As far as citizenship, the status of foreigners, natural- ization, and the rights and obligations of foreigners are concerned, the stipulations of international treaties remain unaffected. ° Cuba. (Enclosure 1, in despatch from Mr. Sleeper, charge 1 d'affaires, No. 148, August 7, 1906. — Translation. ] Doctor O'Farrill to Mr. Sleeper, August 3, 1906. No. 625.] Department of State and Justice, Department or State, Habana, August 3, 1906. Mr. , Charge d'affaires : , In reference and reply to your honor's polite communication, No. 56, of the 18th ultimo, I take pleasure in advising you, as requested, on the following points, to wit: 1. Laws relating to Cuban citizenship. The existing law governing this matter is comprised in the follow- ing provisions, laws, and decrees : (A) Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 and the second article of the transi- tory rules of the constitution of the Republic. (B) Articles 18 to 24, inclusive, of the civil code, in so far as they are not modified by the above-cited articles of the constitution and can be applied in harmony with the political conditions existing in Cuba since the cessation of Spanish rule. (C) Law of October 30, 1902, published in the Official Gazette of November 7, 1902. (D) Law of November 21, 1902, published in the Official Gazette of November 27, 1902. (E) Presidential decree No. 183, of December 15, 1902, published in the Official Gazette December 16, 1902, amended by Presidential decree No. 174, of April 21, 1905, published in the Official Gazette of April 26, 1905. (F) Two laws of June 13, 1903, published in the Official Gazette of the same date. 2. Means by which Cuban citizenship is lost. This question is covered by article 7 of the constitution of the Re- public above cited. "Leyes usuales vigentes (edicion ordenada por el Sefior Ministro de Gober- nacion, Lie. don .Jos6 Astfla Aguilar, San Josg, 1905), p. 5. Enclosure in despatch from Mr. Bailey, charge d'affaires, San Jose, July 29, 1906. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 299 3. Whether or not the laws of Cuba authorize the renunciation of citizenship; and if so, the conditions for the reacquisition of the citizenship thus renounced. While no law exists that expressly authorizes the renunciation of Cuban citizenship, article 7 of the constitution and also clause 1 of article 1 of the law cited under date of October 30, 1902, authorize such renunciation by implication. The requisites necessary for reacquiring Cuban citizenship are set forth in the articles of the Civil Code above mentioned. 4. Whether, and how far, residence in foreign parts may affect the citizenship of origin. According to the provisions of article 7 of the constitution, mere residence in a foreign country does not affect citizenship of origin, but according to number 4 of the same article it does affect citizen- ship acquired through naturalization. 5. And, finally, the practice of the Cuban government in protect- ing its citizens permanently residing in other countries. The protection of our citizens in foreign countries, as is the custom of other governments, is intrusted to our diplomatic and consular agents, who, acting under the instruction of this department, are charged to see that they enjoy the privileges accorded to foreigners by the laws of the country in which they reside, and those assured by treaty between Cuba and the different governments, with reference to freedom of residence, right to travel or change of domicile, the exercise of religious worship, the disposal of their property and effects, and the engaging in commercial, professional, or industrial pursuits ; provided, however, that such protection does not extend to the defense of individuals accused before any court of justice, nor to their interests when the subject of judicial contention; this with the understanding that in the event such privileges are not afforded our citizens, or are denied them, or the free exercise of their liberty is restrained, said agents shall file the necessary protests. Herewith inclosed I have the honor to transmit to your honor one copy each of the Gazette, dated the 7th and 27th of November, 1902, and the 16th of December, the same year, previously mentioned, and also a copy of Presidential Decree No. 174, of April 21, 1905, and of the two laws of June 13, 1903, also above referred to. I reiterate to your honor assurance of my highest and most dis- tinguished consideration. Juan F. O'Farrill, Secretary. [Enclosure 2 in despatch No. 148. — Translation.] Constitution. TITLE II. Article 4. Cuban citizens are native born and naturalized. Abticle 5. Native born Cubans are : First. Those born of Cuban parents within or without the territory of the Republic. Second. Those born within the territory of the Republic of foreign parents, provided that on becoming of age they claim the right of inscription as Cubans in the proper register. 300 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. Third. Those born in foreign countries of native-born parents who have forfeited their Cuban nationality, provided that on becoming of age they claim their inscription as Cubans in the same register. Article 6. Naturalized Cubans are : First. Foreigners who, having served in the liberating army, may claim Cuban nationality within six months following the promulgation of this con- stitution. Second. Foreigners established in Cuba prior to January 1st, 1899, who may- have retained their residence after said date, provided they claim Cuban nation- ality within the six months next following the promulgation of this constitu- tion, or, if minors, within a like period after they shall have obtained their majority. Third. Foreigners who, after five years' residence in the territory of the Republic, and not less than two years from the time that they declared their intention of acquiring Cuban citizenship, may obtain their letters of naturaliza- tion in conformity with the laws. Fourth. Spaniards residing in the territory of Cuba on the 11th day of April, 1899, who may not have been registered as such in the proper registers prior to the same month and day of 1900. Fifth. Africans who may have been slaves in Cuba, and those who were emancipated and comprised in article 13 of the treaty of June 28th. 1835, en- tered into by Spain and England. Article 7. Cuban citizenship is forfeited: First. By acquiring foreign citizenship. Second. By accepting employment or honors from another Government with- out permission of the Senate. Third. By entering the military service of a foreign nation without a like permission. Fourth. By a naturalized Cuban residing five years continuously in his native country, except by reason of his being in the employ of or fulfilling a commission of the Government of the Republic. Article 8. Cuban citizenship may be reacquired as may be provided for by law. TRANSITORY RULES. Second. Persons born in Cuba, or children of native-born Cubans, who at the time of the promulgation of this constitution might be citizens of any foreign nation shall not enjoy the rights of Cuban nationality without first and expressly renouncing their said foreign citizenship. [Enclosure 4 in despatch No. 148. — Translation.] Civil Code. Article 18. Children while they remain under the parental authority have the nationality of their parents. In order that those born of foreign parents in Spanish territory may enjoy the benefits granted them by No. 1 of article 17, it shall be an Indispensable requisite that the parents declare, in the manner and before the oflicials speci- fied in article 19, that they choose in the name of their children the Spanish nationality, renouncing all others. Article 19. The children of a foreigner born in Spanish possessions must state, within the year following their majority or emancipation, whether they desire to enjoy the citizenship of Spaniards granted them bv article 17. Those who are in the Kingdom shall make this declaration before the official in charge of the civil registry of the town in which they reside; those who reside abroad, before one of the consular or diplomatic agents of the Spanish Government, and those who are in a country in which the Government has no agent, addressing the secretary of state of Spain. Article 20. The citizenship of a Spaniard is lost by acquiring the nationality of a foreign country, or by accepting employment from another government, or by entering the armed service of a foreign power without the permission of the King. Article 21. A Spaniard who loses his citizenship by acquiring the nationality of a foreign country can recover it upon returning to the Kingdom by declaring CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 801 to the official in charge of the civil registry of the domicile which he elects that such is hifc wish, in order that the proper entry may be made, and by renouncing the protection of the flag of said country. Article 22. A married woman follows the condition and nationality of her husband. A Spanish woman who marries a foreigner may, upon the dissolution of the marriage, recover the Spanish nationality by complying with the requisites men- tioned in the preceding article. Article 23. Any Spaniard who loses his citizenship by accepting employment from any other government, or by entering the armed service of a foreign power without the King's permission, can not recover the Spanish nationality without previously obtaining the royal authorization. Article 24. A person born abroad of a Spanish father and mother, who may have lost the Spanish nationality on account of the parents having lost it, may also i-ecover it by complying with the conditions required by article 19. [Enclosure in despatch from Mr. Squiers, minister to Cuba, No. 291, November 13, 1902. — Translation.] Law or October 30, 1902. Department of State . and Justice. Be it by these presents known, That the Congress has enacted, and I, Tomas Estrada Palma, constitutional President of the Republic of Cuba, have sanc- tioned the following law : Article 1. The acts, by virtue of which Cuban nationality is acquired, lost, or recovered shall be made to appear by means of a record in the section of citizenship of the registry of civil status. The persons included in the "cases referred to in sections 2 and 3 of article o of the constitution and the second of the transitory provisions of the same, and residing abroad, shall exercise the right conferred upon them by the former sections before the diplomatic or consular agent of Cuba nearest to their place of residence. Article 2. The inscriptions to which the preceding article refers shall be made with the following formalities and requirements : 1. The date and place where they are drawn. 2. The names and surnames of the officials authenticating the same. 3. The names, surnames, and filiation of the parties and the witnesses par- ticipating in the act. The witnesses referred to in the preceding paragraphs shall be two, having legal capacity, and shall make a declaration setting forth the truth of the cir- cumstances which should be expressed in the inscription. Article 3. The interested parties shall present to the custodian of the registry their certificates of baptism or the certificate of birth, as the case may be, as well as the record or certificate of marriage, should they be married, together with the certificates of birth of the wife and of the children. Should it be impossible to present the documents referred to in the preceding paragraph, they shall indicate the archives where they may be found, and their approximate date. In the cases where the birth of the interested parties, their wives or their children, shall have been inscribed in the registry of civil status of this island, or in the register in charge of the diplomatic or consular agent, the acquisi- tion, loss, or recovery of Cuban citizenship shall be made by a marginal note on the record of birth, for which purpose the custodian of the register wherein the said acquisition, loss, or recovery occurs shall remit, within the term of fifteen days counting from that on which the inscription took place, a certificate of the same to the custodian of the register wherein the said birth appears. For failure to comply with the provisions of the preceding paragraph a fine of from ten to twenty-five dollars American currency shall be imposed on the custodian of the register required to remit the certificate. Article 4. In the inscriptions mentioned in this law the following circum- stances shall be expressed if it is possible : 1. The former domicile of the interested parties. 2. The names, surnames, place of birth, domicile, and profession or occupa- tion of his parents. 302 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 3. The name, surnames, and place of birth of his wife, if he be married. 4. The names, surnames, place of birth, residence, and profession or occupa- tion of the parents of the latter. 5. The names, surnames, place of birth, residence -of the children, setting forth if any of them are emancipated. Whenever it is impossible to express any of the circumstances mentioned pre- viously, a statement shall be made in the inscription of the reason of that impossibility. AiJTicxE 5. In order to be inscribed as Cuban citizens, the persons included in section 1 of article six of the constitution shall prove by means of the dis- charge or of any other document issued by a competent revolutionary authority that they have belonged to the liberating army. This proof shall be made by such persons before the custodian of the civil registry of their domicile, should they be in this island, or by means of a special attorney before the custodian of the civil registry at their last place of domicile therein, or of the place of domicile where they intend to fix their residence iD Cuba, if they are abroad. Article 6. In order to be inscribed as Cuban citizens, the persons included in sections second and third of article sixth of the constitution shall prove before the custodian of the civil registry of their place of domicile in Cuba the resi- dence required by said sections by means of an authentic document, or proof by witnesses made in the manner established in article eight of the present law. The declaration of intention to which the third section of article six of the constitution refers should be made before the custodian of the civil registry of the domicile which the interested party has in Cuba with the same formalities as in case of inscription. Abticle 7. To be inscribed as Cuban citizens, the persons included in section four of article six of the constitution shall prove before the custodian of the registry of civil status of their place of domicile in Cuba that they have not been registered in the registry of Spaniards opened in pursuance of the pro- visions of the treaty of Paris of December 10, 1898, that they are of full age, and that they resided in this island on the 11th day of April, 1899. The proof of not being inscribed in the said registry of Spaniards must neces- sarily be made by means of a certificate issued by the functionary of said registry. The circumstances of full age and of residence shall be accredited by means of proof by witnesses received under oath before the custodian of the registry of civil status, the witnesses declaring that they resided on the aforesaid date of the 11th of April, 1899, in the same locality as the moving party making the proof. ' The interested party shall present a certificate of the captaincy of the port, or proper authority, wherein shall appear the date of his arrival in the island, the age which he then had, whether he came alone or with a family, the name of the vessel which brought him, and of the captain of the same. Article 8. To be inscribed as Cuban citizens, the persons included in section fifth of article sixth of the Constitution shall prove before the custodian of the civil registry of their place of domicile that the circumstances exacted in said section exist as to them by means of a declaration of witnesses received under oath. Article 9. In all the inscriptions to which this law refers it shall be made to appear that the interested parties renounce their previous nationality and that they swear to obey the constitution of the Republic, the laws which are actually in force in this island, and those which may be in force in the future. Article 10. The custodians of the registry of civil status in this island shall remit to the division of state of the department of state and justice certificate of each inscription which they make in the books of the section of citizenship, and to the section of registries and notarial affairs of the same department a comprehensive table of the inscriptions, classified according to the model which said section shall formulate. The diplomatic or consular agents shall remit to the department of state certificates of the inscriptions referred to in paragraph second of article one of this law for their transcription in the registry of civil status of the last place of domicile which the interested parties may have had or of that which they propose to have in this island. The term for the remission provided for in the two preceding paragraphs shall be fifteen days, counted from the day following that on which the inscrip- tion of transcription in question shall take notice. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATKIATION, ETC. 303 Failures to fulfill this duty shall be punished gubernatively by the secretary of state. Article 11. Those who prior to the promulgation of this law have proven in the extinct department of state and government that there exist as to them the circumstances exacted in articles five, six, seven, and eight of this law are exempted from the proof of the same ; as well as those that may have made in the registry of civil status of their domicile the declaration of option or renun- ciation of nationality to the end that "they might be registered as electors ac- cording to the provisions of the additional dispositions of order number 218, of October 14, 1901. Article 12. All laws, provisions, orders, or decrees contrary to the provisions of this law are repealed. Therefore I command the obedience and enforcement of this law in its entirety. Given at the palace of the President, in Havana, October thirtieth, 1902. T. Estrada Palma. Carlos de Zaldo, Secretary of State and Justice. [Enclosure 5 in despatch No. 148. — Translation.] LAW OF NOVEMBER 21, 1902. Tomas Estrada Palma, constitutional President of the Republic of Cuba. Be it known that Congress has enacted and I have sanctioned the following law: Article 1. The law of October 30, 1902, published in the Official Gazette of November 7th, 1902, shall be in force on and after the day of the publication of this law in the Official Gazette of the Republic. Wherefore I command obedience and the enforcement of this law in its entirety. Given at the presidential palace in Havana the 21st of November, 1902. T. Estrada Palma. Carlos de Zaldo, Secretary of State and Justice. [Enclosure 6 to despatch No. 148. — Translation.] DECREE NO. 183. Department of State and Justice, Department of State. By virtue of the powers conferred on me by the constitution, I hereby decree as follows : 1. Native-born citizens of the Republic of Cuba shall have the right to solicit and there shall be issued to them by the secretary of state and justice a certifi- cate affirming their nationality pending the issuance of documents and certificate declaring them to be in possession of citizenship. Those governed by clauses 2 or 3 of article 5 of the constitution shall further allege the compliance with precepts of the law of October 30, 1902. 2. Citizens of the Repiablic of Cuba who may have obtained citizenship by virtue of any of the clauses of article 6 of the constitution and have, complied with the provisions of the law of October 30th, 1902, by registering themselves in the corresponding civil register,- shall have the right to solicit from the secretary of state and justice, and there shall be issued to them, letters of Cuban naturalization, signed by the President of the Republic, on presentation of a sworn statement that they are iu such political condition. 3. The sworn statement referred to in the two previous articles should be taken at the time of soliciting the certificate of nationality or letters of naturali- zation and ratifying same before a notary, who will acknowledge the identity of the petitioner and the legitimacy of his signature. 304 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 4. The certificate and letters of citizenship issued in compliance with the foregoing articles shall be sufficient to establish the nationality of the parties in whose favor authorized. Given at the presidential palace in Havana the 15th day of December, 1902. T. Estrada Palma, President. Caelos de Zaldo, Secretary of State and Justice. ' [Enclosure 7 in despatch No. 148. — Translation.] DECREE NO. 174. By virtue of the powers conferred on me by the constitution, and at the instance of the secretary of state and justice,' I hereby decree: Article 1. The rules of clause 1 of decree No. 183, of December 15, 1902, rela- tive to the issuance of certificate of nationality and letters of citizenship shall be classed as follows : Citizens of the Republic, excepting those who have obtained citizenship by virtue of the provisions of article 6 of the constitution, shall have the right to solicit ; and there shall be issued to them by the secretary of state and justice a certificate affirming their nationality pending the issuance of proper docu- ments and certificate declaring them to be in possession of citizenship. Those, however, coming under clause 2 or 3 of article 5, or the second clause of the transitory rules of the constitution, shall establish proof of having com- plied with the precepts of the law of October 30, 1902. In case of married women, minors not emancipated or incapacitated, the peti- tion shall be presented by their lawful representatives, which shall affirm their alleged character, and who shall state under oath that the parties represented have been found to be in such political condition. A married woman may, however, exercise the said right by obtaining a certi- fied copy of her marriage license, or if she be legally separated from her hus- band, or exempt from marital state. Given at the presidential palace in Havana the 21st day of April, 1905. T. Estrada Palma, President. Juan F. O'Farrill, Secretary of State and Justice ad interim. [Enclosure 8 in despatch No. 148. — Translation.] LAW OP JUNE 13, 1903. Tomas Estrada Palma, Constitutional President of the Republic of Cuba. Be it known that Congress has enacted and I have sanctioned the following law : The law of October 30, 1902, referring to the inscription in the registry of civil status of the acts by virtue of which Cuban nationality is acquired, lost or recovered, is hereby amended by adding the following : Article VII. If the interested party can not obtain said document through lack of proofs, or that obtained be insufficient, they shall furnish, by means of a statement duly sworn to before the custodian of the registry of civil status, the particulars required, with the exception of the name of the master of the vessel, which shall not be presented on the certificate presented. Wherefore I command the obedience and enforcement of this law in its entirety. Given at the presidential palace in Havana on the 13th day of June, 1903. Tomas Estrada Palma, President. The Secretary of State and Justice, ad interim, Jose M. Garcia Montes. crrrizENsflip of the United stateS, expatriation, etc. 30& [Enclosure 9 in despatch No. 14S. — Translation.] LAW OF JUNE 13, 1903. Tomas Estrada Palma, constitutional President of the Republic of Cuba. Be it known that Congress has enacted and I have sanctioned the follow- ing law: ..,.,,, Article 1. That for foreigners to exercise the rights conferred on them by numbers one and two of article 6 of the constitution it shall be sufficient thnt they petition in writing, within the six months time fixed by the consti- tution, their desire to acquire Cuban citizenship, to any authorized official or functionary of the Republic, the date of presentation of said petition to be duly certified. Article 2. All officials or functionaries of the Republic having in their pos- session a petition for naturalization, as prescribed by the foregoing article, shall transmit same, if requested to do so by the party at interest, to the cor- responding custodian of the civil registry within three months following the publication of this law. Article 3. The functionary or official referred to in the preceding article must accompany said petition with a certificate, duly sworn to, to the effect that same had been presented within the constitutional time limit. If the presentation shall have been made before a municipal judge in charge of the civil registry, the sworn certificate shall be attached to the bottom of the petition and shall in all cases state such fact in the inscription. Article 4. The transmittal of such petitions, until naturalization may be definitely inscribed, shall conform to the rules and regulations established by the law of October, 30, 1902. , ( Article 5. The three months referred to in article 3 having elapsed with- out any action by the party at interest, the petition for naturalization, to which reference is made in article 1 of this law, shall become null and void and of no further effect. Article G. This, law shall be jn force and effect from and after the day following its publication in the Official Gazette of the Republic. Wherefore I command the obedience and enforcement of this law in its entirety. Given at the presidential palace in Havana on the 13th day of June, 1003. . T. Estrada Palma, President. The Secretary of State and Justice ad interim. Jose M. GaecIa Montes. Denmark. [Enclosure in despatch from Sir. O'Brien, minister to Denmark, September 23, 1906. — Translation.] LAW CONCERNING THE ACQUIREMENT AND THE FORFEITURE OF THE RIGHT AS A DANISH-BORN. We, Christian the Ninth, by the grace of God, King to Den- mark, etc. Make known the " Rigsdag " has voted and we by our assent sanc- tioned the following law : . * 1 1. A legitimate child whose father. enjoys the right of a Danish- born acquires by its birth the right of a Danish-born, whether the birth takes place in this country or in a foreign country. § 2. Persons who have not acquired the right of a Danish-born by birth, but who are born in this country, acquire the right of Danish- born when they continue after their birth to have their domicile litre until they have completed their nineteenth year, unless they during H. Doc. 326, 59-2 20 306 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. the last year declare in writing before a chief magistrate (in Copen- hagen before the " magistrat ") that they do not wish to acquire the right of a Danish-born arid besides prove by a suitable certificate thoir citizenship in another country. This declaration can not be made with legal effect by a person, being a child of a foreigner, who lias himself in the above-named manner declared to maintain his foreign citizenship. When a man acquires the right of a Danish-born in virtue of this section, it comprises also his wife and his legitimate children. § 3. A foreign woman marrying a man possessing the right of a Danish-born acquires this right by her marriage. If the consorts have got children with each other previous to the marriage, these children acquire the right of Danish-born, provided that they are minors (under eighteen years). § 4. The right of a Danish-born is also acquired by naturalization, according to section 51 of the constitutional law of the 28th of July, 180(5.° The naturalization of a man comprises his wife and^ his legitimate minor children, if not otherwise provided in the individual case. § 5. The right as a Danish-born is forfeited by acquiring citizenship in another country. When a man becomes naturalized in another country, his wife or legitimate minor children, unless they remain domiciliated here, forfeit their right as Danish-born, provided that they become citizens in the foreign country by his naturalization there. Anybody wishing to become a citizen of a foreign country may be released by royal decree from his connection as a Danish citizen. The release is, however, granted on condition that he, within a certain time, becomes a citizen of another country. § 0. A woman who marries a man not possessing the right of a Danish-born forfeits her right as a Danish-born. If the consorts have got children with each other previous to the conclusion of the marriage, these children forfeit also their right as Danish-born if they are minors at the time when their parents con- tract marriage. If they are of age at that time, they keep their risjht as Danish-born. § 7. If a Danish man or a Danish unmarried woman, after having completed their eighteenth year, or a widow after the death of her husband, or a divorced wife after her divorce during ten years without intermission have been domiciliated in foreign countries, they forfeit their right as Danish-born (see, however, section 8) unless the absence is caused by the public service of the Danish Govern- ment or they retain their right as Danish-born by a declaration made in writing before the Danish legation or consulate concerned, in compliance with the regulations laid down on that subject, before the expiration of the said ten years. This declaration must, to remain effective, be repeated before the expiration of the tenth year from the latest declaration. Only a person who himself has emigrated and his children, as well as the widows of such persons, are admitted to make such a declara- tion. [" No foreigner can be naturalized except by law.] CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 307 When a man (according to this section) forfeits his right as a Danish-born, the loss is extended to his wife and his legitimate, minor children, unless they remain in this country. The provisions of this section can be abolished or restricted in relation to a foreign power by treaty with that power. § 8. A person who has forfeited his right as a Danish-born ac- cording to section 7, but who has not become a citizen of another country, recovers his right as a Danish-born by domiciliating him- self in this country or even without taking his domicile here by special permission of the King. The right as a Danish-born, when recovered in this way by a man, comprises his wife and his legitimate minor children, even when they remain domiciliated in a foreign country, and regardless of the marriage having been contracted or the birth having taken place after the husband (respectively the father) has forfeited his right as a Danish-born, and consequently the marriage and the birth having not originally conferred the right as a Danish-born upon the wife and children. § 9. An illegitimate child whose mother enjoys the right of a Danish-born acquires by birth the right of a Danish-born, whether the birth takes place in this country or in a foreign country. In the instances where a legitimate child according to this law follows the condition of the father, the position of an illegitimate child as to citizenship depends on the condition of the mother in his respect. If the condition of the mother as to citizenship is altered in conse- quence of her marriage with a man who is not father to her children, the condition of the children as to citizenship is not altered. § 10. Children found in this country whose position as to citizen- ship is unknown are considered till their real position can be ascer- tained to have the right of a Danish-born. § 11. Section 2 of this law applies also to persons born before this law comes into force, but who at that time had not yet obtained the right of a Danish-born according to section 9 of the ordinance of the 15th of January, 1770. A woman living, when this law comes into force, in marriage with a husband having the right of a Danish- born acquires the right of Donish-born. In other respects the provisions of this law are only to be applied as far as the fact by which the right of Danish-born is acquired or forfeited has taken place after the coming into force of this law. § 12. This law does not alter the position in law granted under the existing rules to persons who are not Danish-born in consequence of their having domicile here or having had a fixed sojourn here a cer- tain time. § 13. This law is applicable in all parts of the Danish State like the former provisions in this matter which they replace. It does not apply to persons whose right as Danish-born is re- served by the Article XIX of the treaty of peace of the 30th of October, 18G4. •"Whereto all whom it may concern have to conform themselves. Given at Amalicnborg, on the 19th of March, 1898, under our royal hand and seal. Christian R. [l. s.J $@§ eii r tzE$r&i:ii > dfr the t?nit1d states, exMtriAti6n"; etc. DANISH WEST INDIES. [Enclosure In despatch from Mr. Payne, American consul at St. Thomas, August i, 1906. ] 80ME REMARKS BY THE GOVERNMENT SECRETARY OF THE DANISH WEST INDIES ON THE BIRTHRIGHT OF DANISH NATIVES WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE DANISH WEST INDIES. The rules about the acquisition and forfeiture of Danish birthright are to be found in the ordinance of 15th January, 1776, and the la# of 19th March, 1898, of which last-mentioned law copies are annexed: These rules are valid in all parts of the Danish State, consequently a§ Well in the "European possessions df the State, as in the American (West Indian) possessions. Therefore when in the following re- marks the word " Denmark " is used, it is used as synonymous with the Danish State, including the Danish West Indies. I. The acquisition, of birthright as Danish native. The birthright as Danish native is acquired : (a) By every legitimate child whose father is a Danish native, whether the child is born in Denmark (including the Danish West Indies) or abroad. For illegitimate children the birthright as Danish native is ac- quired when the mother has this right and without regard to where the birth takes place. . (b) By the" children of foreigners born in Denmark (including the Danish West Indies) , provided that these children from the time of their birth till they have completed their nineteenth year have been domiciled in Denmstrk (including the Danish West Indies), unless such persons have in the course of the last year made a declaration to the, superior authority (in the West Indie's the governor) to the effect that they do not wish to acquire Danish birthright, and prove that they are in possession of the right of citizenship in a foreign country. /This declaration can, however, not be made with lelgal effect by one who is the child of an alien who has in the sa'me manner (by declara- tion) demonstrated his right of citizenship of a foreign country. For the better explanation of this the following remarks are made: When a foreigner has taken up his residence within the Danish State he continues to be a foreigner unless he be\ naturalized by law. His legitimate children born here will acquire Danish birthright by remaining within the Danish State unless they, during the time be- tween their eighteenth and nineteenth year make a declaration to the effect that they, do not wish to aequire the birthright as Danish natives. But if the family continues to be domiciliated here, the children of those who by making the above-mentioned declaration' have maintained their foreign citizenship are Danish natives and can not by any declaration renounce their position as such. It must, however, here be remembered that the legitimate children of the" daughters become foreigners if the father himself is a foreigner by birth when, in due time they make the aforesaid declaration. (c) By foreign women who marry. a Danish native, and (d) By foreigners who by a, law passed in the Kigsdag and sanc- tioned by the King acquire birthright ,as Danish natives. Foreigners domiciliated in the Danish West Indies and who desire to acquire the birthright as Danish natives must consequently, in the same man- giTIZENSHiP OF THE UNITED STJ^CES, EXPATRIATION, E#$. §§$ ner as foreigners dpmiciliatftd in European Denmark, apply tp the home government in orcler to acquire this right. II. The forfeiture of the birthright as Danish native. The birthright as punish native is forfeited : (a) When the native acquires citizenship in a foreign land. (6) By a native woman who marries a foreigner. (c) When a native for ten years uninterruptedly has been domi- ciliated abroad, unless he within the expiration of this term of ten years, before the Danish ambassador or consular official in the place concerned, makes a declaration to the effect that he reserves his rights as a Danish native. This declaration must be repeated every tenth year. When the right as Danish native is forfeited in this manner the wife and minor children of the person will also lose their rights as Danish natives in so far as they are living abroad. Danish natives from the panish West Indies who are domiciliated abroad and who wish to maintain their rights as Danish natives must consequently before ten years have elapsed after their arrival to the foreign land make a declaration as aforesaid tp a Danish ambassador or consular official if they wish to maintain their rights ats. Danish, natives. Whenever their right as Danish native has been lost by the omis- sion of making the said declaration in due time, the person concerned will recover his rights as Danish native by taking up his abode again within Danish territory, in so far as he has not become a citizen of a foreign country or otherwise by special permission from the King. III. The privileges and the special duties of Danish natives. As already stated, the rights attached to the possession of birth- right as a Danish native are the same whether the person concerned |ias been born in the one or the other part of the Danish State, whether in European, Denmark or in the Danish West Indies^ These rights are in all essentials the following: (a) No Danish native can be banished from the Danish territory. (5) While staying aprpad any Danish native can, whenever the circumstances call for it, obtain the help and projection of the Danish State through the Danish representatives abroad (ambassadors or consular officials). (c) Only Danish natives can obtain royal appointment in offices under the Danish State, while foreigners can obtain appointment in municipal offices. (d) While in European Denmark, as in most other States, only the natives are. in possessiqn of franchise for the legislative assembly (Rigsdagen), the colonial law of 1863 forms an exception for the Danish West Indies in so far as it grants franchise for the colonial council to foreigners who for five years have been domiciliated in the Danish West Indies. Danish natives, however, become electors to the colonial council after two years* stay in the Danish West Indies^ ' {e) In European Denmark only Danish natives are entitled to sup- port from the Danish State, while in the Danish West Indies foreign- ers obtain this right after having been domiciliated there for five years. "'!/) Danish natives have an exclusive right to benefit from the State's charitable institutions as well as for assistance from th$ feiiversity and the Academy for Fine Arts in Copenhagen. 310 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. The special duties incumbent on Danish natives consist chiefly in the more intense obligation to loyalty toward the King and the Gov- ernment of the country. Furthermore, the natives who are able to carry arms are bound to a greater extent than the domiciliated for- eigners to defend the country in case of necessity (wars, etc.). Here it is, however, to be remarked, that they who are domiciliated in the Faroe Islands, in Iceland, Greenland, and in the Danish West Indies at present are not bound to do military duty in the Danish army or navy. IV. The rights of foreigners domiciliated within Danish territory: .While the Danish natives have free admissions to the territory of the Danish State, this last can lay down what conditions it chooses for the admission of foreigners to its territory. Foreigners are allowed to remain within Danish territory as long as they do not become a burden for the public. In the Danish West Indies, but not in European Denmark, foreigners acquire settlement when they have been domiciled there for five years. For crimes committed in foreign parts foreigners can be extra- dited, while Danish natives never are extradited to a foreign power. Besides, foreigners, but not natives, are under certain conditions exposed to banishment by judgment from a court of justice. Foreigners are allowed to carry on trade within Danish territory. In the Danish West Indies in certain cases a Burgher-brief and (as in former days also in European Denmark) the making of an oath is required. The making of this oath does, however, not otherwise change anything in the position of the foreigner, and does not confer oh him the right of Danish native. After having been domiciliated in the Danish West Indies for five years the foreigner acquires franchise for the colonial council. Con- cerning this provision, which is exceptional for the Danish West Indies, reference is made to the above remarks. Foreigners, but not natives, can be banished from the State when- ever the interests of the Danish State should make it desirable. Every right acquired by a foreigner through the domiciliation ceases when he gives up his domicile on Danish territory. Dominican Keptjblic. Mr. Dawson, minister to Dominican Republic, to Mr. Root, Secretary of State, August 16, 1906. American Legation, Santo Domingo, August 16, 1906. Sir : Complying with your circular instruction dated July 9, 1906, in regard to the information desired by the board to inquire into foreign citizenship laws, I have the honor to report that the Domini- can enactments on the subject are: 1. Articles 7 and 8 of the constitution, adopted June 12, 1896, and which is now in vigor. A transcript of these articles is here- with inclosed. These provisions or others substantially identical have been in the Dominican constitutions since March 9, 1875. Cer- CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 311 tain constitutions in force before that date provided that the chil- dren of foreigners residing in the country should not be considered as Dominican, although such children were born on Dominican soil. 2. Those provisions of the Code Napoleon which apply to, citizen- ship, domicile, etc. The Code Napoleon was enacted as Dominican legislation as soon as the Republic became independent, and has ever since constituted the body of the substantive law of the country. In 1884 a translation was made by official authority into the Spanish language, and this is the authorized version and the one cited to the courts. It does not differ materially from the French version, and in the provisions referring to the subject inquired about, not at all. Where the provisions of the inclosed articles of the constitution differ from the code of 1884, it is the former that prevail. For ex- ample, the constitution provides that all persons (including women) born on Dominican soil are Dominican citizens. The code provides that a married woman takes the nationality of her husband. But a woman born in the Republic may take out a license as a steamship agent — a right confined to Dominican citizens — although she has married a foreigner. ******* •There are no special provisions in regard to the means by which citizenship may be lost, or as to renunciation of citizenship. A citi- zen may lose his political rights for certain crimes or the acceptance of employment by a foreign government, but it is expressly provided (art. 8 of constitution) that no Dominican can be recognized as hav- ing another nationality while he is residing in this country. The legal presumption from the affirmative terms used is that the natu- ralization of a Dominican abroad would be recognized by this Gov- ernment as long as he did not return. So far as I have been able to ascertain, there has been no legal decision or holding of the foreign office on the point. But there is no doubt that the meaning of the constitution is that in any event the Dominican citizenship of a native naturalized abroad would revive upon his return. As a matter of fact, there are a considerable number of native Dominicans now resident here who claim foreign nationality, in some cases because they are the children of foreign citizens, and in others because they have been naturalized in some other country. It would seem inevitable that grave disputes would arise therefrom between the foreign office and the diplomatic representatives of the other countries, but in practice such disputes have been avoided for the most part^— altogether so far as this lega- tion is concerned. **•»►*«* There is no separate enactment in regard to naturalization and the acquisition of Dominican citizenship. By paragraph 5 of article 7 any foreigner who has acquired a permanent domicile here may, after two years of residence, become naturalized. He effects it by making application with proofs to the governor or other representative of the central government, and a letter of naturalization signed bv the President and countersigned by a secretary of state, accordingly issues. I have, etc., T. C. Dawson. 312 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATER, EXPATBIATION, ETC. [Enclosure.] CONSTITUTION. [Xsanslatipn.] > Title 2. — Dominicajis. Article 7. The following are Dominican? : First. All persons who have been or may be. born within the territory of the Republic, whatever be the nationality of their parents. ' Second. The children of Dominican fathers or mothers who were born in another territory, if they come to the country and establish their domicile in it Third. All natives of the Spanish-Anierican republics, and those of the neighboring Antilles who may desire to be Dominicans, after they have resided one year within the territory of the Republic and provided they manifest this desire by taking an oath to defend the interests Of the Republic, before the governor of the province or district where they reside and have obtained their naturalization papers. Fourth. All persons naturalized according to the laws. Fifth. All foreigners of any friendly nation, provided they establish their domicile within the territory of the Republic and declare their desire to become Dominicans, and provided they shall have resided here at least two years and expressly renounce their nationality before the proper authority. For the purposes of this article the legitimate children of foreigners resid- ing in the Republic as representatives or in the service of their country shall not he considered as being born within the territory of the Republic. Article 8. No Dominican shall be recognized as having any other than Dpminican nationality while he resides in the Republic. CIVIL CODE." [Translation.] Chapter I. — The enjoyment of civil rights. Article 7. * * * Article 8. Every Dominican shall enjoy civil rights. Article 0. The following are Dominicans. First. All persons who have been or may be born within the territory of the- "Republic, whatever be the nationality of their parents. § For the purposes of this^ article the legitimate children'of foreigners resid- Jng in the Reirablic as representatives or in the. service of their country shall not be considered as being born within the territory of the Republic. Second,. All natives of tl?e Spanish-American republics and. those of the nejgh : boring Antilles whp may desire to be Dpmiuicans, after they have resided oug year within the territory of the Republic. Third. All persons naturalized according to the laws. Fourth. All foreigners of any friendly nation, provided they establish their domicile within the territory qf the Republic and declare their desire, to become Dominicans, a,pd provided they shall have resided" here at least two years and expressly renouric6 their nationality before the proper authority. "'Article 10.' The children of Dominican fathers Or'mb'tners who were born In another territory, if they come to the Country and establish their domicile ill it' Article 11. A foreigner shall enjoy the same civil rights, in the Republic oS those granted to Dominicans by the treaties of the nation to which the foreigner belongs. Article 12. A foreign woman married to a Dominican shall follow the status of b,er husband,. Article 13. A foreigner whom the Government has allowed to establish bis donii.eile in the Republic shall enjoy all civil rights while tie ' resides In' th& country. " Article 14. A foreigner, although he may not reside in the Republic, may, b# summoned before the courts of the latter for the purpose of compelling him ty carry out obligations ; contracted, by hiin in the Republic and with a Dominican; he may' also be brought before the courts with Regard ttf obligations contracted' In a foreign country with Dominicans. <,<>•»•■> « Official edition of 1884. CJ'T^ZE^S.BriP pF. TfliE II^ITED STATES, EXP^TBIATION, ETC. 313 Chapter II. — The loss of civil rights. Article 17. Tbe rights of citizenship are lost : First. By serving or engaging to serve against the Republic. Second. By having been sentenced to a penalty involving corporal or infamous punishment. Third. By accepting, within Dominican territory, employment from a foreign government without the consent of the National Congress. Fourth. By committing fraqduleut bankruptcy. Article 18. All Dominicans except 'those who have lost their rights through the cause set forth in the first paragraph of the foregoing article may be rein- stated therein. Article 19. A Dominican woman who contracts marriage with a foreigner shall follow the status of her husband. If she becomes a wiUo\\% she shall recover her Dominican nationality provided she resides in or returns to the Republic and by declaring that she desires to settle again within Dominican territory. Article 20. Persons who recover their Dominican nationality in the cases eoiifemphfted' in articles' 10, 18. and ID shall not be entitled to avil themselves thereof until they have fulfilled the conditions imposed by said articles, and then only with regard to the exercise of such rights as are granted them after that time. Article 21. A Dominican who, without the authorization of the Govern- ment, enlists in a foreign army or affiliates himself with any foreign military body, sbali lose his Dominican nationality ; he shall not lie allowed to return to the Republic except by permit of the Government, and be shall only recover his Dominican nationality by fulfilling the conditions imposed on a foreigner iu order to acquire such nationality. All of which shall be without prejudice to the penalties provided by the criminal law against Dominicans who l\ave taken up or may take up arms against their country. EctJADOK. Mr. Lee, minister to Ecuador, to Mr. Root, Secretary of State, November 15', J.906. American Lbcation, Quito, November 15, 190Q. Sir: Referring to the Department's instruction of October 24, I have the, honor to embody herewith the Ecuadorean regulations concerning citizenship, expatriation, protection of citizens, etc. The following are considered Ecuadoreans: \. Those, persons born in Ecuadorean territory and of Ecua- dnrean parents. 2. Those, born in the same territory and of foreign parents who are residents in the country, if they do not make known their inten- tion of keeping the nationality of their fathers. % Foreigners who profess the science?, arts, industries, ox who are proprietors in the country, declare, their intention to. become Ecuadoreans, and obtain naturalization papers, 4. Foreigners who obtain from Congress naturalization, papers for services rendered to the Republic. 4 Tho.se born in foreign territory of Ecuadorean parents and who declare their intention to, keep, the nationality of their fathers, Ecua.dqr,' protects, its citizens, in foreign countries, in accordane w.ith the usual practices of international law. Ecuadoreans can be naturalized in foreign countries and regain their original nationality after some years' residence in Ecuador, and if they declare their intention to become again Ecuadoreans. I have, etc., Joseph W. J. Lee. 314 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. CONSTITUTION (1807). [Translation."] Chapter II. Section 1. — Of the Equatorians. 6. The following are Equatorians: (1) Those who are born in the territory of the Equator of Equato- rian father or mother; (2) Those born in the said territory of foreign parents if they re- side therein ; (3) Those who, born in a foreign state of Equatorian father or mother, come to reside in the Republic and express their wish to become Equatorians ; (4) Natives of other countries who may be in the enjoyment of Equatorian nationality ; (5) Foreigners who profess science, art, or useful industry, or who may be owners of real property or invested capital, and who, after having resided one year in the Republic, declare their intention of becoming domiciled therein and obtain letters of naturalization; (G) All who obtain nationality rights for services to the Republic; 7. No Equatorian, even although he may acquire another nation- ality, shall be exempted from the duties imposed by the constitution and the laws so long as he remains domiciled in the Republic. Section 2. — Of the citizens. 8. To be a citizen it is necessary to be 18 years of age and able to read and write. 9. The rights of citizenship are lost — (1) By entering the service of a nation at war with the Republic; (2) By naturalization in another country; and (3) In the other cases determined by the laws. 10. Equatorians who may have lost the rights of citizenship shall be able to obtain rehabilitation from the Senate; but those sentenced to confinement or imprisonment for a term exceeding six months shall not qbtain rehabilitation until their sentence has expired. Any Equatorian who may be naturalized in another country shall recover his rights of citizenship if he returns to the Equator and, renouncing his foreign nationality, declares his intention of reassum- ing Equatorian citizenship. 11. The rights of citizenship are suspended — (1) By judicial interdiction; (2) By judicial sentence pronounced in consequence of infractions of the law which entail the loss of the rights of citizenship ; and (3) By judicial sentence against a public official or functionary. a Text as printed in 89 British and Foreign State Papers, 1095. citizenship of the united states, expatriation, etc. 315 France. [Enclosure in despatch from Mr. Vignaud, charge 1 d'affaires, August 1, 1906.] [Memorandum.] FRENCH CITIZENSHIP. I. French citizens by birth : Are French — 1. Those born in France of a Frenchman. (Law of June 26, 1889, art. 8, new, sec. I of the Civil Code.) 2. Those born in a foreign country of a Frenchman. (Ibid.) 3. Those born in France of unknown parents or of parents whose nationality is unknown. (Ibid., sec. 2.) 4. Those born in France of an alien. (Ibid., sec. 4.) With regard to this last class of individuals, the law states that they are French if at the time of their majority they are domiciled in France; but in fact the authorities assume that they are always so domiciled. Practically every individual born in France is held to be French. II. French citizens by naturalization : Naturalization is conferred in France by the executive and not by the courts of justice. The courts, however, have jurisdiction in cases of contested nationality. . , Are naturalized French in pursuance of the law without making any application — 1. The alien woman who marries a Frenchman. (Law of June 26th, 1889, art. 12, new, of the Civil Code.) 2. The minor children of an alien who becomes French. (Ibid.) III. Those who may be naturalized on their application : 1. Aliens who have obtained permission to establish their domicile in France, after three years of such domicile. (Same law, art. 8, sec. 5, new, of the Code.) 2. Aliens who can show an uninterrupted residence of ten years. (Ibid.) 3. Aliens who have fulfilled abroad during ten years duties con- ferred by the French Government. (Ibid.) 4. Aliens who have been admitted to domicile in France after one year of such domicile, if they have rendered any service in France or displayed exceptional talents. (Ibid.) 5. Aliens who marry a French woman, after one year of author- ized domicile. (Ibid.) 6. The woman married to an alien who becomes French by natural- ization. (Same law, art. 12, new, of the Code.) 7. The children of full age of a naturalized alien. . (Ibid.) IV. Frenchmen who can decline French nationality: 1. Those born in France of an alien who, during the year following their majority, claim the nationality of their father, provided tlioy produce (1) a certificate of the government of the country to which they claim to belong supporting such a claim, and (2) another certifi- cate from the same government stating that they have responded to ^1$ piIIZEl^HiP Of THE IPajKEEI} gEATES, EXP4.TE|4TIfiU, Eid. the military call of the country or t.hat they are not subject to such a call. (Same law, art. 8, sec. 4, new, of the Code.) (Thrpugh their embassies or legations most qf fhe European gov- ernments furnish those certificates when needed] As our only form of certifying to American citizenship is a passport, and as a passport is not considered by the French authorities as answering to the cer- tificate mentioned by the law, this embassy couples with the passport a statement that it is equivalent to said certificate.) 2. Those who have discharged all their, military obligations toward France in the active army and in the reserve of th§ active ar|ny. (Same law, art. 17, sec. 1, new, pf the Civi} Code.) 3. The minor children of a naturalized Frenchman ^yhen coming of age and, during the year following their majority, bu| not later on. (Same law, art. 12, new, of the Cod?-) V. Frenchmen who can not change the^r na^ipnsd^y without ^e consent of the Government : 1. Those boim in France of an alien who was himself born French. (Same law, art. $, sec. 3, new, of the Civil Code ; ) 2. Those who are sitfl subject to. military service \n the actiye array and in its reserve. (Art- 17, neW) of the Civil Cr4?-) VI. Conditions under which Frenchmen may cease to be French ; 1. By being naturalized abroad. (Art. 17, sec. 1, new, of the Civil Cpde : ) 2. ][3y accepting military service or official functions in a foreign country. (Art. 17, sec. 4.) But in either case a Frenchman remains French if at the time of his. naturalization or of his taking service abroad he is sti|l liable |o military service in France. (Art. 17.) 3. By the marriage of a French woman to an alien, unless, accord- ing to the law o,f the country of b,er husband, she does nq.^ assume his nationality. (Art. }9 of the CrvU Code.) Formerly permanent establishment in a foreign cpuntry was con- sidered as evidence of no Intention pf returning to France and in- volved the loss of French nationality; but that clause of the Pqijg has been repealed. A^ Frenchman remains French as long as, he does not renounce his nationality and assume another one by an s$ ; pf his own volition. In short, the French system with regard \q nationality <$$ \ft summed up^ in the two, following propositions : 1. Are I 1 rench all those born in Fraqcej whatever the, nationality of their parents may be, and all' ^hpse born abroa^ from, ^ Frencf} father. 2. No Frenchman can legally be naturalized ahrpad befpre, fraying begii released frpm all military obligations in. France, unless, it be with the permission of the Government — a pe^missiqn whfch i§ very seldom granted. It is to be noted that the, naturalization pf ^ F/r^chn^an acquired by him during t,he, time he is liable, tq military seryi.ce is' considered as void even after he has, passed'^ age, during which he, niight '* pejejp, called, for such service Paris,, August 1, 19Q6. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 317 [Enclosure In despatch from tar. Vlgriau&; August i, 1908.] law titi nAtio^alit* of i'trira 2d, i88'9. ['translation.] Promulgates in the Journal offid'el of June 28, 1889. The Senate and the CMhiber of Deputies have adopted, and , The President of the Eepublic promulgates the law in tenor as follows : .__ Article 1. Articles 7< 8, 9, 10} 1% 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code are modified as follows : Article?. The exercise of civil rights is independent of the exercise of political rights, which are acquired and preserved in accordance with the con- stitutional and electoral laws. Article 8. Every Frenchman shall enjoy civil rights. The following are Frenchmen : . 1. Every person born of a Frenchman in France or abroad. A natural child whose filiation is established during minority, either by recog- nition or judgment, follows the nationality of the parent in respect of whom trie proof has first been established. If the filiation is established in respect of the father or mother by the same act or the same judgment, the child follow the nationality of the father. 2. Every person born in France of unknown parents or Of parents whose nationality is unknown. 3. Every person born in France of a foreigner himself born there.o 4. Every person born in France of a foreigner and who, at the time of attain- ing his majority, is domiciled in France, unless, during the year following his majority, as regulated by the French law, he has declined French nationality and proved that he has preserved the nationality of his parents by a certificate in due form from his government, which shall remain attached to the declara- tion, and unless he has, moreover, produced, where such exists, a certificate showing that be has answered a call to the colors, in conformity with the mili- tary law of his country, save the exceptions provided in treaties. £>. Naturalized foreigners. ,, The following may be naturalized : i. Foreigners who have obtained the authorization to establish their domicile in France, in conformity with article, 13 hereinbelow, after three years' domicile in France, dating from the filing of their application at the ministry of justice. 2. Foreigners who can prove an uninterrupted residence of ten years. A sojourn in a foreign country in the discharge of, an office conferred by the French Government is considered equivalent to residence in France. , 3. Foreigners admitted to establish their domicile in France, after one year, if they have rendered important services to France, if they have brought thither distinguished tafents, if they have introduced either an industry or useful inventions, if they have created industrial or other establishments or agricul- tural enterprises, or if they have been connected in any way with the military service in the French colonies or protectorates. 4. A foreigner who has married a French woman, also after one year of authorized domicile. , .. The request for naturalization is decided by decree, after ah investigation as to the moral character of the, foreigner. Article 9.« Every person born in France of a foreigner and who is not domi- ciled there at the time of attaining his majority may. up to the age of 22 years completed, make his application to establish his domicile in France, and, if he establishes it there within a year after filing his application, he may claim French nationality by means of a declaration which shall be filed in the ministry cf justice. If he is less than 21 years of age completed, the declaration shall be made by his father in his name, and in case of death (of his father), by his mother; in o See infra, law of July 22, 1893. 318 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. case of the death of both father and mother or of their being excluded from guardianship, or in the oases contemplated in articles 141, 142, and 143 of the Civil Code, by the guardians authorized by decision of the family council. lie also becomes a Frenchman if, having been included in the recruiting list he takes part in the recruiting operations without objecting on the grounds of being a foreigner. has lost French nationality may claim such -nationality at any age, under the Article 10. Every person born in France or abroad of parents of whom one conditions laid down in article 9, unless, being domiciled in France and called to the colors at the time of reaching his majority, he has invoked his foreign nationality. Article 12. A foreign woman who has married a Frenchman shall follow the status of her husband. A woman married to a foreigner who becomes naturalized as a Frenchman, and the children of full age of a naturalized foreigner, may, if they so request, acquire French nationality without fulfilling any condition as to residence, either by the decree conferring such nationality on the husband, the father, or the mother, or by virtue of the declaration which they shall make in accordance with and under the conditions of article 9. The minor children of a father or surviving mother who becomes naturalized as French also become French unless they decline this nationality within the year following their nationality, in conformity with the provisions of article 8, paragraph 4. Article 13. A foreigner who has been authorized by decree to establish his domicile in France shall enjoy all civil rights there. The effect of the authorization shall cease at the expiration of five years if the foreigner does not ask to be naturalized or if his request is denied. In case of death before naturalization, the authorization and the period of residence which has followed it shall accrue to the benefit of the wife and of the children who were minors at the date of the decree of authorization. Article 17. The following lose their French nationality : 1. A Frenchman naturalized in a foreign country or who acquires foreign nationality at his own request by the effect of the law. If he is still subject to the obligations of military service in the active army, his naturalization abroad will not work a loss of his French nationality unless it has been authorized by the French Government. 2. A Frenchman who has declined French nationality in the cases contem- plated by paragraph 4 of article 8 and by articles 12 and 18. 3. A Frenchman who, having accepted a public office from a foreign govern- ment, continues to hold it in spite of an injunction by the French Government to resign it within a certain period. 4. A Frenchman who, without the authorization of the Government, accepts military service abroad, subject, however, to the penal laws against Frenchmen who shirk the obligations of the military law. Article 18. A Frenchman who has lost his French nationality may recover it. provided he resides in France, by securing reinstatement by decree. French nationality may be conferred by the same decree on the wife and on the children who are of age. if they so request. The minor children of the father or mother reinstated become French unless they decline this nationality within a year following their majority, in conformity with the provisions of article 8, paragraph 4. Article 19. A French woman who marries a foreigner follows the status of her husband unless her marriage does not confer upon her Hie nationality of her husband, in which case she remains French. If her marriage is dissolved by the death of her husband or by divorce, she recovers her French nationality, with the authorization of the Government provided she resides in France or returns there, by declaring that she has returned there and that she wishes to reside there permanently. In case the marriage is dissolved by the death of the husband, French nation- ality may lie granted by the same decree of reinstatement to the minor chil- dren, at the request of the miitlier. or by a subsequent decree, if the request is made by the guardian with the approval of the family council. Article 20. Persons who acquire French nationality in the cases contem- plated by articles 9. 10. 18. and 19 can only avail themselves thereof with regard to rights which have accrued to their benefit since that time. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 319 Article 21. A Frenchman who, without the authorization of the Government, enters military service abroad can return to France only by virtue of a permit granted by decree, and can recover his French nationality only by fulfilling tUe conditions imposed in France on foreigners for acquiring ordinary naturaliza- tion. 2. The present law is applicable to Algeria and to the colonies of Guadeloupe, La Martinique, and La Reunion. However, the senatus consultum of July 14, 18C5, and other regula- tions relating specially to naturalization in Algeria shall continue in force. 3. A naturalized foreigner enjoys all the civil and political rights of a French citizen. Nevertheless he is not eligible to the legislative assemblies until ten years after the decree of naturalization, unless a special law shortens this period. The period may be reduced to one y car - Frenchmen who recover their nationality after having lost it im- mediately acquire all the civil and political rights, including eligi- bility to the legislative assemblies. 4. The descendants of the families who were exiled at the revoca- tion of the edict of Nantes shall continue to benefit by the provisions of the law of December 15, 1700, but on condition that a special de- cree be issued for each applicant. This decree shall produce effect only for the future. 5. For the execution of this law a set of regulations of public ad- ministration shall determine: (1) The conditions under which its provisions are applicable to the colonies other than those mentioned in article 2 above, as well as the formalities to be observed for natural- ization in the colonies; (2) the formalities to be fulfilled and the proofs to be furnished in connection with ordinary naturalization and naturalization by favor in the cases contemplated by articles 9 and 10 of the civil code, as well as in connection with the renunciation of French nationality in the cases contemplated by articles 8 (paragraph 4),' 12, and 18. (>. The decrees of April 6, 1809, and August 2G, 1811, are abro- gated; likewise the laws of March 22, 1819; February 7, 1851 ; June 29, 18G7; December 10, 1874; February 14, 1882; June 22, 1883, and all provisions contrary to the present law. Temporary provisions. Every permit to establish domicile obtained prior to the present law shall become null and void if within a period of five years from the promulgation thereof it has not been followed by an application for naturalization, or if the application for naturalization lias been rejected. The present law, having been debated and adopted by the Senate and Chamber of Deputies, shall be enforced as a law of the nation. Done at Paris, June 2G, 18S9. Caknot. TlIEVENF.T, Custodian of the Seals, Minister of Justice and Public Worship. 3§i) CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EiPATAllTlON, &&. [Eh'clo'sure In de^patc'n froin Mr. Vignaud, August 1, 1906.] LAW MODIFYING ARTICLE 8, PARAGRAPH 3, AND ARTICLE 9 OF ' .^HE ciVijt (CODE RELATIVE TO THE DECLARATIONS MADE WITH A VIEW TO AC<3u1r- ING OR DECLINING FRENCH NATIONALITY, OP JULY 22, 1893. Promulgated in the Jo'urhal of/lciel' of July 23; 1893. The Senate and Chamber of Deputies have adopted, and the Presi- dent of the [Republic promulgates the law, in tenor as follows: Article i. Paragraph 3 of article 8 of the Civil Code is modifieu thus: The following are Frenchmen: *..*.*. . , 3. Every person born in France of foreign parents, of whom one was also born there, except that he has the privilege, if it was his mother who was born iii France, of declining French nationality during the year following the attain- ment of his majority, by conforming to the provisions of subdivision 4 herein- after. A natural child may, under the same conditions as a legitimate child, decline French nationality when the parent wjio was born in France is not the one whose nationality the child ought, according to subdivision 1, second paragraph, to follow. 2. Persons to whom article 8, paragraph 8 modified, reserves the right to claim foreign nationality, and who have attained their ma- jority at the date of promulgation of the present law, may claim such nationality by fulfilling the conditions prescribed within the period of one year dating from this promulgation. 3. Article 9 of the Civil Code is modified as follows : Every person born in France of a foreigner and who is not domiciled there at the time of attaining his majority may, up to the age of 22 years completed, make his application to establish hig domicile in France, and, if he establishes it there within a year after filing his application, he may claim French nation- ality by means of a declaration, which must be filed in the ministry of justice in order to be valid. ,, , The filing shall be refused if it is found from the documents produced that the declarant does not fulfill the conditions laid down by the law, in which case he may appeal before the civil courts, as prescribed by articles 855 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure. A notification of the refusal, stating grounds, should be given to the claimant within a period of two months from his declaration. The filing may be refused, moreover, on the grounds of unworthiness even if the declarant fulfills all the legal conditions ; however, in this case the matter must be decided and the declarant duly notified by a decree issued with the advice of the council of state within a period of three months from the decla- ration, or, if there has been a contest, from the day on which the judgment admitting the claim became final. The declarant shall be entitled to produce documents and statements before the council of state. If the notifications above referred to are not made within the periods indi- cated, the minister of justice shall, upon the expiration of these periods, remit to the declarant upon his request a copy of his declaration upon which the fact of its being filed is noted. The declaration shall be effective from the day on which it was made unless it be rendered null and void by a refusal to file it. The rules with regard to filing set forth in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present article are applicable to declarations made for the purpose of declining French nationality in conformity with article 8, paragraphs 3 aiid 4, and articles 12 and 18. Declarations made either for the purpose of claiming or of declining French nationality must, after filing, be inserted in the Bulletin of Laws. However, the omission of this formality can not prejudice the rights of declarants. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 321 If a person claiming French nationality is less than 21 years of age completed, the declaration shall be made in his name by his father ; if the father be dead, by the mother; if both the father and 'mother are dead or are excluded from guardianship, or in the cases contemplated by articles 141, 142, and 143 of the Civil Code, by the guardian authorized by a decision of the family council. He also becomes French if, having been included in the recruiting list, he takes part in the recruiting operations without objecting on the grounds of being a foreigner. The present law, having been debated and adopted by the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies, shall be enforced as a law of the nation. Done at Marly-le-Roi, July 22, 1893. Caenot. E. GuIskin, Custodian of the Seals, Minister of Justice. COLONIES. NO. 32628. DECREE DETERMINING THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE PRO- VISIONS OP THE LAW OP JUNE 26, 1889, ON NATIONALITY ARE APPLICABLE TO THE COLONIES, EXCEPT GUADELOUPE, LA MARTINIQUE, AND LA RE- UNION, OP FEBRUARY 7, 1897." [Translation.] Promulgated in the Journal officiel of February 10, 1897. , The President of the French Republic. On the report of the minister of the colonies and of the guardian of the seals, minister of justice. In view of article 18 of the senatus-consultus of May 3, 1854. In view of article 7 of the decree of May 25, 1881, regarding the naturalization of foreigners in Cochin China. In view of the decree of November 10, 1882, regarding the naturali- zation of the foreigners residing in New Caledonia. In view of the law of June 26, 1889, on nationality, and especially of article 5, reading as follows : For the execution of the present law, a set of public administrative regula- tions shall determine : 1. The conditions under which these provisions are applicable to the colonies except those mentioned in article 2 hereinabove, as well as the formalities to the observed in granting naturalization in the colonies. In view of the decree of August 13, 1889, promulgating regulations of public administration for the execution of the law of June 26, 1889, on nationality. In view of the law of July 22, 1893, modifying article 8, section 3, and article 9 of the Civil Code, relating to the declarations made with a view to acquiring or declining French nationality. The council of state having been heard decrees : Title I. — Acquisition, loss, and recovery of French nationality in the colonies other than Guadeloupe, La Martinique, and La Reunion. Art. 1. Articles 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code are hereby declared applicable to the colonies, except Guadeloupe, La Martinique, and La Reunion, under the following conditions : Art. 7. The exercise of civil rights is independent of the exercise of 1 54 Bulletin des Lois, 1394. H. Doc. 326, 59-2 21 322 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. political rights, which are acquired and retained in accordance with the constitutional and electoral laws. Art. 8. Every Frenchman shall enjoy civil rights. The following are Frenchmen : 1. Every person born of a Frenchman in France, in the colonies, or abroad. A natural child whose filiation is established during minority, either by recognition or judgment, follows the nationality of the parent 'in regard to whom the proof has first been established. If the filiation is established with regard to the father or the mother by the same act or judgment, the child shall follow the nationality of the father. 2. Every person born in the colonies of parents who are unknown or whose nationality is unknown. 3. Naturalized foreigners. The following may be naturalized : 1. Foreigners who can prove three years' uninterrupted residence in the colonies. Sojourn in foreign countries in the discharge of an office conferred by the French Government is equivalent to such residence. 2. Foreigners, after one year's residence, provided they have ren- dered important services to France or her colonies, have come there possessing distinguished talents or have introduced there an industry or useful inventions, or have created industrial or other establish- ments, or agricultural enterprises, or have been connected in any man- ner with the military service in the French colonies or protectorates. 3. A foreigner, after one year's residence, if he has married a French woman. Applications for naturalization are decided on by decree after an investigation has been made into the moral character of the foreigner. Art. 9. Every person born in the colonies of a foreigner and who resides there may, upon making application within a year after at- taining his majority, be naturalized by decree without any other requisites. Art. 10. Every person born in France, in the colonies, or abroad of parents one of whom has lost French nationality and who resides in the colonies may be naturalized by decree at any age. Art. 12. A foreign woman who has married a Frenchman shall follow the status of her husband. A woman married to a foreigner who becomes naturalized as a Frenchman, and the children of legal age of a naturalized foreigner, may, upon application, acquire French nationality without any other requisite by virtue of the decree which confers such nationality on the husband, father, or mother. The minor children of a surviving father or mother who becomes naturalized as French, become French unless, within a year following the attainment of their majority as regulated by the French law, they decline such nationality in accordance with the provisions of article 12 of the present decree. Art. 17. The following lose French nationality : 1. Frenchmen naturalized abroad and those who acquire foreign nationality by virtue of the law at their request. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 323 If such persons are still subject to the obligations of military service in the active army, naturalization shall not work loss of French nationality unless authorized by the French Government. 2. Frenchmen who have declined French nationality in the cases contemplated in articles 12 and 18. 3. Frenchmen who, having accepted public office conferred by a foreign government, continue to hold it in spite of an injunction by the French Government to resign it within a fixed period. 4. Frenchmen who enter the military service of a foreign country without the consent of the Government, without prejudice to the penal laws against Frenchmen who shirk the obligations of the military law. Art. 18. A Frenchman who has lost French nationality may re- cover it by securing his reinstatement by decree, provided he resides in France or the French colonies. French nationality may be granted by the same decree to the wife and the children who are of age, if they so request. The minor children of a father or mother reinstated become French unless they decline such nationality within a year after the attainment of their majority, in conformity with the provisions of article 12 of the present decree. Art. 19. A French woman who marries a foreigner follows the status of her husband unless her marriage does not confer upon her the nationality of her husband, in which case she remains French. If her marriage is dissolved by the death of the husband or by divorce, she recovers French nationality by consent of the Govern- ment provided she resides in France or the colonies or returns thither and declares her intention of residing there. In case the marriage is dissolved by the death of the husband, French nationality may be conferred upon the minor children by the same decree of reinstatement, at the request of the mother, or by a subsequent decree if the request is made_by the guardian, with the approval of the family council. Art. 20. Persons who acquire French nationality in the cases con- templated in articles 18 and 19 can only avail themselves thereof with regard to rights accruing to them after that time. Art. 21. Frenchmen who enter foreign military service without the consent of the Government can not return to France or the colo- nies without permission granted by decree, and can not recover French nationality except by fulfilling the conditions imposed on foreigners in order to acquire ordinary naturalization. 2. A naturalized foreigner enjoys all the civil and political rights attached to French citizenship. Nevertheless, he is not eligible to the legislative assemblies until ten years after the decree of naturali- zation, unless this period is shortened by a special law. The period may be reduced to one year. Frenchmen who recover French nationality after having lost it acquire immediately all civil and political rights, including eligi- bility to the legislative assemblies. 3. The descendants of the families who were proscribed at the time of the revocation of the edict of Nantes shall continue to benefit by the provisions of the law of December 15, 1790, but on condition that a special decree be issued for each applicant. This decree shall take effect only for the future. 324 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 4. The naturalization of foreigners and the restoration of French nationality shall give rise to the collection of a fee of 100 francs for affixing the seal. This fee shall go to the benefit of the colony. A total or partial remission of this fee may be granted by decree of the President of the Eepublic at the proposal of the minister of the colonies and the minister of justice. Title II. — Formalities to be observed in order to acquire or renounce French nationality in the colonies, except Guadeloupe, La Marti- nique, and La Reunion. 5. A foreigner who desires to become naturalized in the colonies should present an application, accompanied by his birth certificate, an extract of the court record relating to him, and, if married, his marriage certificate and the birth certificates of his minor children, with a translation of these documents if they are in a foreign language. 6. A foreigner who requests naturalization after three years' un- interrupted residence in the colony should append to his application documents showing that he actually resides there and has resided there at least three years. 7. A foreigner who has married a French woman should, if he desires to become naturalized after one year's residence, produce the birth certificate of his wife as well as that of her father, if the latter document is necessary in order to prove her French origin. 8. A foreigner who requests naturalization under the conditions contemplated by article 10 of the Civil Code as modified by the present decree should produce birth or marriage certificates of that one of his parents who possessed French nationality, and of his grandfather in the same line, as well as the documents which certify to the loss of such nationality. 9. If the interested party is unable to procure the documents relative to the civil status which are required to be produced by the present decree, their place may be supplied by a national act drawn up in the form established by a ministerial decision reached jointly by the minister of the colonies and the guardian of the seals, minister of justice. 10. The wife and minor children of a foreigner who requests to become French, either by naturalization or restoration to former nationality, should, if they desire also to acquire French nationality without condition as to period of residence, by application of articles 12 and 18 of the Civil Code as modified by the present decree, append their application for naturalization to that made by the husband, the father, or the mother. 11. The application for naturalization should be transmitted, together with the corroborative documents, to the mayor of the cpmmune or to the administrative officer of the territory in which the applicant resides. It is the duty of the mayor or administrative officer to make an investigation as to the previous record and the moral character of the applicant. The result of this investigation is sent, together with the record of the case and the corroborative documents, to the director of the interior or the official performing the duties of such. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 325 The latter transmits the case, together with his opinion supported by reasons, to the governor of the colony. The governor, after passing upon the application, transmits it, together with the corroborative documents, to the minister of the colonies. It is decided upon by the President of the Republic, with the advice of the minister or the colonies and the minister of justice. 12. Signed declarations, made either in order to renounce the right to decline French nationality or in order to relinquish such nation- ality, are received by the justice of the peace within whose jurisdic- tion the applicant resides. They may be made by special and duly authenticated power of attorney. They shall be drawn up in duplicate. The applicant shall be accompanied by two witnesses, who shall certify to his identity. He shall produce in support of his declara- tion his birth certificate, an attestation in due form from his govern- ment, showing that he has preserved the nationality of his parents, and a certificate to the effect that he has responded to the call to the colors in conformity with the military law of his country, save the exceptions provided by treaties. In case of residence abroad the declarations are received by the diplomatic officers or the consuls. 13. The two copies of the declaration and the corroborative docu- ments shall be immediately sent by the justice of the peace to the attorney-general of the Republic. The latter shall transmit them without delay, through the governor, to the minister of the colonies, who shall forward them to the minister of justice. The declaration shall be recorded at the chancelry on a special register. One of the copies, together with the corroborative docu- ments, shall be filed among the archives, while the other copy is sent t.o the interested party with a memorandum of the registration. The recorded declaration shall bear the date of the day on which it was received by the authority before which it was made. 14. The declaration must be recorded in the ministry of justice under penalty of being void. The recording shall be refused if it is found from the documents produced that the declarant does not fulfill the conditions imposed by law. he being entitled to appeal before the civil courts in the manner prescribed by articles 855 et seq. of the Code of Civil Pro- cedure. The applicant shall, within a year from the date of his declaration, receive a notification of the refusal to record it, accompanied by a statement of the reasons. Unless the notifications mentioned above are made within the period indicated the minister of justice shall, upon the expiration thereof, deliver to the declarant, at his request, a copy of his decla- ration, accompanied by a memorandum of registration. 15. The renunciation by a minor of the right which belongs to him, in accordance with articles 12 and 18 of the Civil Code, as modified by the present decree, of declining French nationality within a year after the attainment of his majority, shall be made in his name by his father, or, in case of the latter's death, by his mother ; in case of 326 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. ■ the death of both father and mother or of their exclusion from guardianship, or in the cases contemplated by articles 142 and 143 of the Civil Code, or in case the period of paternal authority has expired, it shall be made by the guardian authorized by deliberation of the family council. These declarations shall be made in the form prescribed by arti- cles 12 et seq. of the present decree. They shall be accompanied by the birth certificate of the minor and by the decree conferring French nationality on his father or mother, as the case may be. 16. Declarations made either for the purpose of renouncing the right to decline French nationality or for the purpose of -relinquish- ing such nationality shall be inserted in the Law Bulletin after being recorded. Nevertheless, the omission of this formality shall not prejudice the rights of declarants. No fees for affixing seals shall be collected on these declarations. Title III. — General provisions. 17. No change is made in the status of the natives in the French colonies. 18. All provisions contrary to the present regulations are hereby abrogated. 19. The minister of the colonies and the guardian of the seals, minister of justice, are each charged, as far as he is concerned, with the execution of the present decree, which shall be published in the Official Gazette of the French Republic and inserted in the Law Bul- letin, as well as in the official bulletin of the ministry of the colonies. Done at Paris, February 7, 1897. Felix Fattre. Andre Lebon, Minister of the Colonies. J. Darlan, Guardian of the Seals, Minister of Justice and Worship. German Empire. Mr. Tower, ambassador to Germany, to Mr. Root, Secretary of State, November 19, 1906. No. 1061. J Embassy op the United States, Berlin, November 19, 1906. Sir : In compliance with the instructions contained in Mr. Bacon's circular dispatch of the 9th of July, 1906, and in reply to a note which I addressed accordingly to the imperial German ministry of foreign affairs, asking for information in regard to the laws of citi- zenship and the practice of the German Government in protecting its citizens in foreign countries and recognizing their expatriation, I have received to-day from the ministry copies of the laws now in force upon this subject throughout the Empire, which are respectfully inclosed to you herewith, as follows : CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 327 A copy of the " Bundes-Gesetzblatt des Norddeutschen Bundes," No. 20, issued at Berlin on the 23d of June, 1870, which contains on page 355 the law of June 1, 1870, as to acquirement and loss of citi- zenship in the different Federated States of the North German Con- federation. This law, which was enacted only for the territory in- cluded within the North German Confederation, was subsequently extended and has effect throughout the whole German Empire; so that its provisions which relate to the North German Confederation, its territory and its citizens, are to be taken to apply to the whole of the territory and citizens of the Empire. In this it is to be noted, however, that the provisions of article 1, paragraph 2, and of article 8, paragraph 3, and also paragraph 16, which were valid only so long as the North German Confederation existed and were limited to its existence, have now no further force. It will be seen that under this law the rights of citizenship in Ger- many are acquired : 1. By inheritance. 2. By legitimation. 3. By marriage. 4. By adoption. 5. In the case of a foreigner, by naturalization. By birth, even in the case of children born abroad; legitimate children of a citizen of Germany acquire the nationality of their father; illegitimate children acquire the nationality of the mother. I inclose also herewith, upon page 604 of the Reichs-Gezetzblatt, issued on the 18th of August, 1906, a copy of a statute which enlarged and amended the provisions of the act above referred to of the 1st of June, 1870. I also inclose as a further provision relating to citizenship in Germany a copy of the " Bundes-Gesetzblatt des Norddeutschen Bundes," No. 16, published in Berlin on the 20th of April, 1-871, con- taining on page 64 a copy of the constitution of the German Empire ; this provision is in paragraph 3. I also inclose a copy of the " Reichs-Gesetzblatt," No. 32, issued at Berlin on the 22d or December, 1875, which contains on page 324 a further enactment in regard to foreigners in the service of the German Empire. I inclose further a copy of the " Reichs-Gesetzblatt," No. 40, issued at Berlin on the 13th of September, 1900, which contains on page 812 the provisions relating to the acquirement of citizenship in the Ger- man protectorates. The provisions of the law under which citizenship and nationality are lost in Germany are set forth in paragraphs 1 to 13 of the statutes of the 1st of June, 1870. German subjects may, under certain circumstances, be released upon petition from their German allegiance. The provisions relat- ing to this subject are to be found in paragraph 13, No. 1, and in paragraphs 14 to 19 of the law of the 1st of June, 1870 ; but if a German subject has once been released from his allegiance he can acquire his nationality again only through naturalization. . Germans who have lived abroad for ten years without interrup- tion shall lose their nationality through that fact, unless they take steps to preserve their allegiance under the provisions of the statute. This period of ten years may be reduced by treaty between Germany 328 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATBIATION, ETC. and other states to a period of five years. (Paragraph 21 of the statute of the 1st of June, 1870.) Reacquirement of nationality so lost is provided for in sections 4 and 5 of paragraph 21 of that statute. In case of a residence abroad German nationality may be lost also under conditions which are set forth in paragraphs 20 and 22 of the statute of the 1st of June, 1870. German subjects residing abroad have the right to claim German protection abroad under the provisions of the constitution of the Empire. But the Imperial Government denies its protection to German subjects living abroad in case such subjects have voluntarily acquired citizenship in another country. I have, etc., Charlemagne Tower. [Enclosure. — Translation.] (NO. 510.) LAW OF JUNE 1, 1870, ON THE ACQUISITION AND LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP IN THE CONFEDERATION AND THE STATES THEREOF. We, William, by God's grace King of Prussia, etc., order in the name of the North German Confederation, with the consent of the Bundesrath and the Reichstag, as follows : § 1. Citizenship in the Confederation is acquired by virtue of citizenship in one of the States thereof, and ceases with the loss of the latter. Citizens of the Grand Duchy of Hesse possess citizenship in the Confederation only when they are domiciled in those parts of the grand duch which belong to the Confederation. § 2. Citizenship in one of the States of the Confederation shall hereafter be only — (1) By descent (§ 3) ; (2) By legitimation (§ 4) ; (3) By marriage (§ 5) ; (4) In case of a North German, by admission ; and (5) In case of a foreigner, by naturalization (§ -6 et seq.). Adoption does not have this effect of itself. § 3. The legitimate children of a North German acquire the citizenship of the father by birth, even when they are born abroad, and the illegitimate children of a North German woman acquire the citizenship of the mother by birth, even- though they be born abroad. § 4. If the father of an illegitimate child is a North German and the mother does not possess the citizenship of the father, the child acquires the citizenship of the father by being legitimated according to the law. § 5. Marriage with a North German confers the citizenship of the husband on the wife. I 6. Both admission and naturalization (§ 2, Nos. 4 and 5) are granted by means of a certificate drawn up by the proper administrative authority. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 329 § 7. The certificate of admission shall be granted to every citizen of another State of the Confederation who applies therefor and proves that he has settled in the State in which he desires admission, unless there are reasons, according to §§ 2 to 5 of the law of November 1, 1867, concerning the right to change residence (Federal Law Bulletin, p. 55), which justify the rejection of a new settler or the refusal to permit a continuance of residence. § 8. A certificate of naturalization shall be granted to foreigners only when they (1) are capable of managing their own affairs according to the laws of their fomer domicile, unless the deficiency in this regard is supplied by the con- sent of the father, the guardian, or the curator of the applicant; (2) have led an irreproachable life; (3) find a residence of their own or some place of shelter in the locality where they wish to settle; (4) are able to support them- selves and those dependent on them in such locality according to the condi- tions prevailing there. Before granting a certificate of naturalization the higher administrative authority shall receive a report from the municipality and the poor board of the place where the applicant wishes to reside relative to the requirements under Nos. 2, 3, and 4. Citizens of the Kingdoms of Bavaria and Wiirttemberg and of the Grand Duchy of Baden shall, in case of reciprocity, be required, before they become naturalized, to furnish proof that they have complied with the military obli- gations of their former country or have been released therefrom. § 9. A commission issued or confirmed by the Government or by a central or higher administrative authority to a foreigner or citizen of another State of the Confederation who has been employed in the direct or indirect Government service or in the church, school, or municipal service shall supply the place of a naturalization certificate or certificate of admission unless a reservation to the contrary is contained in the commission. If a foreigner has been appointed to a position in the service of the Confed- eration he acquires citizenship in that State of the Confederation in which he has his official residence. § 10. A certificate of naturalization or admission confers all the rights and obli- gations of citizenship from the date of its issue. § 11. ' A grant of citizenship shall, unless exception is made, also extend to the wife and the minor children who are still under the paternal authority. § 12. Residence in a State of the Confederation does not of itself confer citizen- ship. § 13. Citizenship shall henceforth be lost only: (1) By release upon application (§§ 14 et seq.) ; (2) by decision of the authorities (§§ 20 and 22) ; (3) by ten years' residence abroad (§ 21) ; (4) in the case of illegitimate children, by legitimation in accordance with the provisions of the law, provided the father belongs to a different State than the mother; (5) in the case of a North German, by marriage with a citizen of another State of the Confedera- tion or with a foreigner. § 14. Release shall be granted by means of a certificate of release issued by the higher administrative authority of the native State. 330 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. § 15. Release shall be granted to every citizen who proves that he has acquired citi- zenship in another State of the Confederation. In the absence of such proof it shall not he granted — (1) To persons liable to military duty who are between 17 and 25 years of age until they have produced a certificate of the district recruiting board show- ing that they are not seeking the release for the sole purpose of evading military duty in the standing army or in the navy ; (2) To military persons belonging to the standing army or the navy, to officers of the furloughed class, and to officials, until they have been discharged from the service ; (3) To persons belonging to the reserve of the standing army, and the land- wehr, as well as to the reserve of the navy and to the seewehr, and not appointed as officers, after they have been called into active service. § 16. North Germans who wish to emigrate to the Kingdom of Bavaria, the King- dom of Wiirttemberg, or the Grandduchy of Baden, or to those parts of the Grandduchy of Hesse which do not belong to the Confederation, shall be; refused release, in case of reciprocity, as long as they fail to prove that the State in question is willing to admit them. § 17. Release shall not be refused in times of peace for any other reasons than those indicated in §§ 15 and 16. In times of war or danger of war the right is reserved to the presidency of the Confederation to issue special orders. § 18. A certificate of release involves loss of citizenship from the date of its issue. The release becomes ineffective if the person released does not transfer his residence outside of the territory of the Confederation within six months from the day of issue, or if he does not acquire citizenship in another State of the Confederation. % 19. The release extends also to the wife and to the minor children who are still under the paternal authority, unless an exception is made therein. § 20. North Germans residing abroad may be declared to have lost their citizenship by resolution of the central authority of their native State if, in case of war or danger of war, they fail to obey an express summons, issued by the presidency of the Confederation for the whole territory of the Confederation, to return within a given period. § 21. North Germans who leave the territory of the Confederation and reside abroad ten years uninterruptedly lose their citizenship thereby. The afore- mentioned period is to be calculated from the date of leaving the territory of the Confederation, or, if the emigrant is in possession of a passport or certifi- cate of nativity, from the time of the expiration of these papers. The period is interrupted by registration in the register of a consulate of the Confederation. It begins anew from the day following cancellation from the register. Loss of citizenship incurred according to this provision extends also to the wife and to the minor children who are under the paternal authority, provided they are with the husband or father. In the case of North Germans who reside at least five years uninterruptedly in a foreign nation and acquire citizenship therein, the ten-year period may be reduced to five years by treaty, regardless of whether the interested party pos- sesses a passport or certificate of nativity or not. North Germans who have lost their citizenship by a ten years' residence abroad and have acquired no other citizenship may recover their citizenship in their former native State even without settling there. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 331 North Germans who have lost their citizenship by a ten years' residence abroad and then return to the territory of the North German Confederation, acquire citizenship in that State of the Confederation in which they settle by means of a certificate of admission issued by the higher administrative author- ity. This certificate must be issued to them on their request. If a North German enters the service of a foreign state without the permis- sion of his Government, the central authority of his native State may by resolu- tion declare him to have forfeited his citizenship, provided he fails to obey an express summons to leave such service within the period expressed therein. §23. If a North German serves a foreign power with the permission of his Gov- ernment, he retains his citizenship. §24. The issue of certificates of admission and of certificates of discharge in the cases contemplated in § 15, subdivision 1, shall be free of charge. For the issue of discharge certificates in other cases than those indicated in § 15, subdivision 1, the amount of stamp taxes and issuance fees shall not ex- ceed one dollar. §25. With regard to the citizens of those States of the Confederation according to whose laws citizenship was lost by a residence abroad of ten years or longer, and who are residing abroad at the time this law is enacted, the period in question shall not be interrupted by this law. With regard to the citizens of the remaining States of the Confederation the period mentioned in § 21 shall begin on the day this law goes into effect. §26. All provisions contrary to this law are' hereby repealed. §27. This law shall go into force on January 1, 1871. In witness whereof we have hereunto set our own signature and affixed the seal of the Confederation. Given at Babelsberg Castle, June 1, 1870. [l. s.] William. Count von Bismarck-Schonhausen. [Enclosure. — Translation.] (No. 2322.) laws of august 18, 1896, fob the introduction of the civil code. * * * * * * * Article 41. The law on the acquisition and loss of citizenship in the Confederation and the States, of June 1, 1870 (Federal Law Bulletin, p. 355), is hereby modified as follows : I. The following provisions are substituted for § 11 : "A grant of citizenship shall, unless exception is made, extend at the same time to the wife and to the minor children who are legally represented, by virtue of parental authority, by the person admitted or naturalized. Daughters who are or have been married are excepted." 332 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. II. The following provisions shall be inserted as § 14a : " The release of a citizen who is under parental authority or guardianship can be demanded by the legal representative only with the approval of the guardian- ship court. " The approval of the guardianship court is not necessary if the father or the mother demand the release for themselves and at the same time for a child by virtue of parental authority. If the sphere of action of a counsel appointed for the mother extends to the care of the person of the child, the mother shall in such case require the approval of the counsel in demanding the release of the child." III. The following provisions take the place of § 19 : " The release shall, unless an exception is made, extend at the same time to the wife and to those children who are legally represented by the person released by virtue of parental authority. " This provision shall not apply to daughters who are or have been married, nor to children who are under the parental authority of the mother, in case the mother requires the approval of the counsel according to § 14, par. 2, second sentence, in order to demand the release of the children." IV. The following provisions are substituted in lieu of § 21, par. 2 : " Loss of citizenship incurred according to this provision extends at the same time to the wife and to those children who are legally represented by the person losing his citizenship by virtue of parental authority. Daughters who are or have been married are excepted." [ Enclosure. — Translation. ] CONSTITUTION. ******* Article 3. There exists for all Germany a common right of nativity, the effect of which is that a citizen or subject of any State of the Confederation shall be treated as a native in all other States of the Confederation and shall therefore be per- mitted to establish his permenent residence there, carry on industriy,, hold public office, acquire real estate, acquire the rights of citizenship, and enjoy all other civil rights on the same conditions as the native-born inhabitants, being treated on an equal footing with them also in matters relating to judicial prosecution and the protection of the law. No German shall be restricted in the exercise of this right by the authorities of his native State or by those of any other State of the Confederation. The provisions regarding the maintenance of paupers and admission into local pauper unions are not affected by the principle set forth in the first paragraph. The treaties existing among the several States of the Confederation with regard to the taking over of exiles, the care of sick, and the burial of deceased citizens shall also remain in force until further modified. With regard to the fulfillment of the military obligations toward the native State the necessary provisions shall be established in the laws of the Empire. All Germans are equally entitled to the protection of the Empire as against foreign countries. [Enclosure. — Translation.] (no. 1095.) law or December 20, 1875, on the naturalization of foreigners EMPLOYED IN THE SERVICE OF THE EMPIRE. We, William, by God's grace German Emperor, King of Prussia, etc., hereby decree the following in the name of the German Empire, with the consent of the Bundesrath and the Reichstag : Foreigners who are employed in the service of the Empire, draw a salary from the imperial treasury, and have their official residences abroad shall not CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 333 be refused a certificate of naturalization by the State of the Confederation in which they request the grant of citizenship. In witness whereof we have hereunto set our own signature and affixed the imperial seal. Given at Berlin, December 20, 1875. [l. s.] William. Prince von Bismarck. [Enclosure. — Translation.] LAW ON THE PROTECTORATES, AS PROMULGATED SEPTEMBER 10, 1900. § 9. Foreigners who settle in the protectorates, as well as natives, may be natural- ized by the imperial chancellor as citizens of the Empire. The imperial chan- cellor is empowered to delegate this authority to other imperial officials. With regard to naturalization and the rights of citizenship in the Empire con- sequent thereon, the provisions of the law on the acquisition and loss of citi- zenship in the Confederation and the States thereof of June 1, 1870 (Federal Law Bulletin, p. 355; Imperial Law Bulletin, 1896, p. 615), as well as art. 3 of the imperial constitution and § 4 of the law on election to the German Reichstag of May 31, 1869 (Federal Law Bulletin, p. 145), are applicable ac- cording to circumstances. Within the meaning of § 21 of the law mentioned, and in the application of the law doing away with double taxation of May 13, 1870 (Federal Law Bulle- tin, p. 119), the protectorates are considered as part of Germany. ******* Great Britain and Certain Colonies and Possessions. [Enclosure in despatch from Mr. Reid, ambassador to Great Britain, No. 240, August 15, 1906.] an act to amend the law relating to the legal condition of aliens and british subjects. [12th May, 1870.] Whereas it is expedient to amend the law relating to the legal conditions 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 assembled, and by the author- ity of the same, as follows: 1. This act may be cited for all purposes as " The naturalization act, 1870." ' STATUS OF ALIENS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM. 2. Eeal 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 may be derived through, from, or in succession to an alien, in the same manner in all respects as through, from, or in succession to a natural-born British subject : Provided — (1) That this section shall not confer any right on an alien to hold real property situate out of the United Kingdom, and shall 334 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. not qualify an alien for any office or for any municipal, parliamen- tary, or other franchise ; (2) 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 hereby expressly given to him; (3) That this section shall not affect any estate or interest in real or personal property to which any person has or may become entitled, either mediately or immediately, in possession or expectancy, in pursuance of any disposition made before the passing 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 effect that the subjects or citizens of that state who have been naturalized as British 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 provided 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 orig- inally 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 court of civil or criminal jurisdiction, of any jus- tice 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 reason of his having been born within the dominions of Her Majesty is a natural-born 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 alien- age 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 en- titled to be tried by a jury de medietate linguae, but shall be triable in the same manner as if he were a natural-born subject. EXPATRIATION. 6. Any British subject who 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 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 335 in such foreign state, be deemed to have ceased to be a British subject and be regarded as an alien : Provided — (1) That where any British subject has before the passing of this act voluntarily become naturalized in a foreign state and yet is de- sirous of remaining a British subject, he may at any time within two years after the passing of this act make a declaration that he is de- sirous of remaining a British subject, and upon such declaration hereinafter referred to as a declaration of British nationality 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 for- eign 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 presence 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 service of Her Majesty. NATURALIZATION AND RESUMPTION OF BRITISH NATIONALITY. 7. An alien who, within such limited time before making the appli- cation hereinafter mentioned as may be allowed by one of Her Majesty's principal secretaries of state, either by general order or on any special occasion, has resided in the United Kingdom for a term of not less than five years, or has been in the service of the Crown for a term of not less than five years, and intended when nat- uralized either to reside in the United Kingdom or to serve under the Crown, may apply to one of Her Majesty's principal secretaries of state for a certificate of naturalization. The applicant shall adduce in support of his application such evi- dence of his residence or service and intention to reside or serve as such secretary of state may require. The said secretary of state, if satisfied with the evidence adduced, shall take the case of the appli- cant 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 Kingdom be entitled to all political and other rights, powers, and privileges and be subject 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 subject of that state in pursuance of the laws thereof or in pursuance of a treaty to that effect. 336 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 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 he any admission that the person to whom it was granted was not pre- viously 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 naturaliza- tion 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 cer- tificate might have been granted if such alien had not been previously naturalized in the United Kingdom. 8. A natural-born British subject who has become an alien in pur- suance of this act and is in this act referred to as a statutory alien may, on performing the same conditions and adducing the same evi- dence 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, hereinafter referred to as a certificate of re- admission to British nationality, readmitting him to the status of a British subject. The said secretary of state shall have the same dis- cretion 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 readmission to British nationality has been granted shall, from the date of the certificate of readmission, 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 pur- suance of a treaty to that effect. The jurisdiction by this act conferred on the secretary of state in the United Kingdom 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 following, 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 MAERIED WOMEN AND INFANT CHILDREN. 10. The following enactments shall be made with respect to the national status of women and children: (1) 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 natural-born British subject, who has become an alien by or in consequence of her marriage, shall be deemed to be a CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 3'37 statutory alien and may as such at any time during widowhood obtain a certificate of readmission to British nationality in manner provided 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 be- come resident in the country where the father or mother is natural- ized, and has, according to the laws of such country, become natu- ralized 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 readmission to British nationality, every child of such father or mother who during infancy has become resident in the British dominions with such father or mother shall be deemed to have resumed the position of a British subject to all intents. (5) Where the father, or the mother, being a widow, has obtained a certificate of naturalization in the United Kingdom, 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 British subject." SUPPLEMENTAL PBOVISIONS. 11. One of Her Majesty's principal secretaries of state may by regulation provide for the following matters: (1) The form and registration of declarations of British nation- ality ; (2) The form and registration of certificates of naturalization in the United Kingdom; (3) The form and registration of certificates of readmission to British nationality; (4) The form and registration of declarations of alienage; (5) The registration by officers in the diplomatic or consular serv- ice 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 mar- riages of persons married at any of Her Majesty's embassies or lega- tions ; " [An act to amend the naturalization act, 1870, so far as respects cb'ldren of naturalized British subjects in the service of ihe Crown resident out of the United Kingdom. [Gth July, 1805.1 Be it enacied 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 assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: 1. (1) The residence of a child of a naturalized British subject with his father while in the service of the Crown out of the United Kingdom, shall have, and be deemed always to have had, the same effect, for the purpose of subsec- tion five of se"ction ten of the naturalization act, 1870, as residence with such father in the United Kingdom. (2) Subsection five of section ten of the naturalization act, 1870, shall have effect as if the words " or with such father while in the service of the Crown out of the United Kingdom " had been inserted therein after the words " part of the United Kingdom," and every copy of the naturalization act, 1870, here- after printed may be printed accordingly. 2. This act may be cited as the naturalization act, 1895. — 58 and 59 Vict., ch. 43.] H. Doc. 326, 59-2 22 338 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. (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 certificates, also of copies of entries contained in any register kept out of the United Kingdom in pursuance of or for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this act; (7) With the consent of the treasury, the imposition and applica- tion of fees in respect of any registration authorized to be made by this act, and in respect of the making 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 pursuance of this section. Any regulation made by the said secretary of state in pursuance of this section shall be deemed to be within 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 contrary of or inconsistent with any such direc- tion may for the time being be in force. 12. The following regulations shall be made with respect to evi- dence under this act. (1) Any declaration authorized to be made under this act may be proved in any legal proceeding by the production of the original dec- laration 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 author- ized by regulations of one of Her Majesty's principal secretaries of state to give certified copies of such declaration, and the production of such declaration 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 naturalization may be proved in any legal pro- ceeding 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. (3) A copy of readmission to British nationality may be proved in any legal proceeding 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 man- ner as may be directed by one of Her Majesty's principal secretaries of state, and the copies of such entries shall be evidence of any mat- ters 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 regu- lation made by a secretary of state in pursuance of or for the purpose of carrying into effect any of the provisions of this act. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 339 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 en- joyed by such person within the limits of such possession, shall within such limits have the authority of law, but shall be subject to be confirmed or disallowed by Her Majesty in the same manner, and subject to the same rules 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-mat- ter thereof — " Disability " shall mean the status of being an infant, lunatic, idiot, or married woman; " British possession " shall mean any colony, plantation, island, ter- ritory, or settlement within Her Majesty's dominions, and not within the United Kingdom, arid all territories and places under one legis- lature are deemed to be one British possession for the purposes of this act; " The governor of any British possession " shall include any per- son exercising the chief authority in such possession ; " Officer in the diplomatic service of Her Majesty " shall mean any ambassador, minister, or charge d'affaires or secretary of lega- tion, or any person appointed by such ambassador, minister, 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-gen- eral, consul, vice-consul, and consular agent. REPEAL Or ACTS MENTIONED IN SCHEDULED 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 schedule 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 [a Section 18 and schedule were repealed by the act of August 25, 18S3, " for further promoting the revision of the statute law by repealing certain enact- ments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary." 4fi & 47 Vict., ch. 39.] 340 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. be incurred in respect of any offense committed before the passing of this act ; (4) The institution of any investigation 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 rjeign of George the Sec- ond, 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 Commons of Great Britain. From original records and authentic manu- scripts."] Past I. — Acts wholly repealed, other than acts of the Irish Parliament. Date. 7 Jas. 1, c. 2 11 Will. 3, c. 6o 13 Geo. 2, c. 7... 20 Geo. 2, c. 44 . 13 Geo. 3, c. 25. 14 Geo. 3, u. 84 . 16 Geo. 3, c. 52. Title. 6 Geo. 4, c. 67 . 7 and 8 Vict, c. 66. 10 and 11 Vict., c. 8; An act that all such as are to be naturalized or restored in blood shall first re- ceive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and the oath of allegiance and the oath of supremacy. An act to enable His Majesty's natural-born subjects to inherit the estate of their ancestors; either lineal or collateral, notwithstanding their father or mother were aliens. An act for naturalizing such foreign Protestants and others therein men- tioned as are settled or shall settle in any of His Majesty's colonies in America. An act to extend the provisions of an act made 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, toother foreign Protestants who conscientiously scruple the taking of an oath." 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. An act to prevent certain inconveniences that may happen by bills of natu- ralization. An act to declare His Majesty's natural-born subjects inheritable to the es- tates of their ancestors, whether lineal or collateral, in that part of Great Britain called Scotland, notwithstanding their father or mother were aliens. An act to alter and amend an act passed in the seventh year of the reign of His Majesty King James the First, intituled "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 supremacy." An act to amend the laws relating to aliens. An act for the naturalization of aliens. "11 & 12 Wm. 3 (Ruff.). Part II. — Acts of the Irish Parliament wholly repealed. Date. .13.. 14 and 15 Chas. 2, c 19 and 20 Geo. 3, c. 29... 23 and 24 Geo. 3, c 38... An act for encouraging Protestant strangers and others to inhabitand plant in the kingdom of Ireland. An net for naturalizing of all Protestant strangers in this kingdom. An act for naturalizing such foreign merchants, traders, artificers, artizans, manufacturers, workmen, seamen, farmers, and others as shall settle in this kingdom. An act for extending the provisions of an act passed in this kingdom in the nineteenth and twentieth years of His Majesty's reign, intituled "An act for naturalizing such foreign merchants, trader-", artificers, artizans, manufacturers, workmen, seamen, farmers, and others as shall settle in this kingdom." An act to explain and amend an act intituled "An act for naturalizing such foreign merchants, traders, artificers, artizans, manufacturers, workmen, seamen, farmers, and others who shall settle in this kingdom." CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 341 Part III. — Acts partially repealed. Date. 4 Geo. 1, c. 9 (act of Irish Parliament.) 66eo. 4,o. 50 3 and 4 Will. 4, c. 91... Title. An act for reviving, continuing, and amend- ing several statutes made in this Kingdom heretofore temporary. An act for consolidating and amending the laws relative to jurors and juries. An act consolidating and amending the laws relating to jurors and juries in Ireland. Extent of repeal. So far as it makes perpetual the act of 2 Anne, c. 14. The whole of see. 47. The whole of sec. 37. AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW RELATING TO THE TAKING OF OATHS OF ALLEGIANCE ON NATURALIZATION. [10th August, 1870.] Whereas it is expedient to amend the law relating to the taking of oaths of allegiance under the naturalization act, 1870 : 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 assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: 1. The power of making regulations vested in one of Her Majesty's principal secretaries of state by the naturalization act, 1870, shall extend to prescribing, as follows: (1) The persons by whom the oaths of allegiance may be admin- istered under that act. (2) Whether or not such oaths are to be subscribed as well as taken, and the form in which such taking and subscription are to be attested. (3) The registration of such oaths. (4) The persons by whom certified copies of such oaths may be given. (5) The transmission to the United Kingdom for the purpose of registration or safe-keeping or of being prbduced as evidence of any oaths taken in pursuance of the said act out of the United Kingdom, or of any copies of such oaths, also of copies of entries of such oaths contained in any register kept out of the United Kingdom in pursu- ance of this act. (6) The proof in any legal proceeding of such oaths. (7) With the consent of the treasury, the imposition and applica- tion of fees in respect of the administration or registration of any such oath. The two last paragraphs in the eleventh section of the naturaliza- tion act, 1870, shall apply to regulations made under this act. 2. Any person wilfully and corruptly making or subscribing any declaration under the naturalization act, 1870, knowing the same to be untrue in any material particular, shall be guilty of a misde- meanor, and be liable to imprisonment with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding twelve months. 3. This act shall be termed the naturalization oath act, 1870, and shall be construed as one with the naturalization act, 1870, and may be cited together with that act as the naturalization acts, 1870. * «33 and 34 Vict, chap. 102. 342 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. AN ACT FOE AMENDING THE LAW IN CERTAIN CASES IN RELATION TO X ATURALIZATION ." [25th July 1872.] Whereas by a convention between Her Majesty and the United States of America, supplementary to the convention of the thirteenth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and seventy, respecting naturalization, and signed at Washington on the twenty -third day of February, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, and a copy of which is contained in the schedule to this act, provision is made in relation to the renunciation by the citizens and subjects therein men- tioned of naturalization or nationality in the presence of the officers therein mentioned : And whereas doubts are entertained whether such provisions are altogether in accordance with the naturalization act, 1870 ; And whereas other doubts have arisen with respect to the effect of " the naturalization act, 1870," on the rights of women married be- fore the passing of that act, and it is expedient to remove such doubts: 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 assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: 1. This act may be cited for all purposes as the naturalization act, 1872, and this act and " the naturalization act, 1870," may be cited together as " the naturalization acts, 1870 and 1872." 2. Any renunciation of naturalization or, of nationality made in manner provided by the said supplementary convention by the persons and under the circumstances in the said convention in that behalf mentioned shall be valid to all intents, and shall be deemed to be authorized by the said naturalization act, 1870. This section shall be deemed to take effect from the date at which the said sup- plementary convention took effect. 3. Nothing contained in " the naturalization act, 1870," shall de- prive any married woman of any estate or interest in real or personal property to which she may have become entitled previously to the passing of that act, or affect such estate or interest to her prejudice. SCHEDULE. [Here follows the text of the convention, signed February 23, 1871, between Her Majesty and the United States supplementary to the convention of May 13, 1870, respecting naturalization.] « 35 and 36 Vict., ch. 39. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 343 ^Enclosure • despatch from Mr. Reicl, ambassador to Great Britain, No. 240, August 15, 1906. — Extract.] REPORT OF THE INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT TO CONSIDER THE DOUBTS AND DIFFICULTIES WHICH HAVE ARISEN IN CONNECTION WITH THE INTERPRETATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACTS RELATING TO NATURALIZATION, AND TO ADVISE WHAT AMENDMENT, IF ANY, OF THE LAW IS DESIRABLE. To the Right Hon. Charles Thomson Ritchie, M. P., His Majesty's principal secretary of state for the home department. 24th July, 1901. Sir: 1. On the 9th February, 1899, your predecessor in office, Secretary Sir Matthew White Ridley, commissioned us to report to him upon the doubts and difficulties which have arisen in connection with the interpretation and administration of the acts relating to naturalization, and to advise whether legislation for the amending of these acts is desirable; and if so, what scope and direction such legislation should take. We have now the honor to report to you the result of our inquiry. In dealing with the subject referred to us we have had to consider two distinct questions, how far the existing law requires elucidation and in what respects and to what extent it requires amendment and extension. On the first point — the doubts as to the interpretation of the present law — we have been at a certain disadvantage, inasmuch as the subject of nationality, though of great importance, is one which, as it happens, is rarely brought before the courts, and consequently there is but little assistance to be obtained from judicial decisions. Questions, however, frequently arise in one form or another in the administration of the affairs — domestic, foreign, colonial, or Indian — of the executive government. We have had before us the records of the various matters relating to the subject which, during the last thirty years or more, have been considered by one or' other of the following public departments, viz, the home, foreign, colonial, war, and Indian offices, and the Admiralty, board of trade, and the civil- service commission. We have also had the advantage of the able assistance of Sir T. Godfrey Carey (bailiff of Guernsey), Mr. W. H. Venables Vernon (bailiff of Jersey), and Mr. George A. Ring (attor- ney-general of the Isle of Man) on the questions specially affecting their respective provinces, and Professor Westlake, K. C, and Prof. A. V. Dicey, K. C, who have been good enough to give us their valuable counsel on certain points on which we thought it desirable to consult them. Further, we have had before us the various laws in force in the different parts of His Majesty's dominions regulating the conditions requisite for conferring upon aliens the rights of British subjects within the limits of the territories governed by such laws; also the report of the select committee which considered the subject in 1843, and the report of the royal commission which dealt with it in 1869, both of which reports, together with their appen- dices, contain much material which is still of practical importance. o Parliamentary Paper, 1901, Cd. 723. 344 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 2. The law relating to naturalization is concerned mainly with the conditions under which the rights, privileges, and duties constituting the status of a British subject are acquired and lost. Persons are either invested with that status at the moment of birth, or subse- quently acquire it under the operation of statute law. The rights iind privileges which constitute the status of a British subject are mainly the political rights and the capacities for the acquisition and holding of property mentioned later in this report; and, what are perhaps of still greater practical importance, those personal rights and privileges which a British subject carries with him into foreign countries. The principal of these are (1) the privilege of protec- tion, subject to any paramount obligation which he may be under to any other state of which he is also a subject or citizen ; (2) the right and liability to become a party to proceedings in British consular courts -established under the foreign jurisdiction act, 1890 (53 and 54 Vict., c. 37) ; (3) the right to be married in foreign countries under the provisions of the foreign marriage act, 1892 (55 and 56 Vict., c. 23). On the other hand, there are special liabilities im- posed on British subjects for acts committed in foreign countries. A British subject is amenable to British courts for treason (35 Hen. VIII, c. 2), for murder or manslaughter committed in a foreign country (24 and 25 Vict., c. 100, s. 9), and for bigamy (24 and 25 Vict., c. 100, s. 5). The law is the same with regard to certain offences under the merchant shipping act, 1894 (57 and 58 Vict., c. 60), and the explosive substances act (46 and 47 Vict., c. 3, s. 3). In some parts of His Majesty's dominions, especially in British India, the liability of a British subject for offences committed outside the limits of the possession is much more extensive. There are also contained in most treaties of extradition special provisions affecting the surrender of the subjects of the country from which the surrender is demanded. 3. Upon naturalization an alien becomes, speaking generally, in- vested with all the rights and capacities, and subject to all the obli- gations and liabilities of a British subject. Some differences, how- ever, still exist between the status of a naturalized and of a natural- born subject, the more important of which will be noticed in the course of this report. We think that as far as possible these differ- ences should be abolished. 4. The above brief indication of the rights and privileges acquired by, and the duties and obligations imposed upon, an alien by his naturalization as a British subject is enough to show the expediency of avoiding as far as possible the occurrence of cases of double nationality, or, in other words, of endeavouring as far as possible to bring about that a person who acquires British nationality shall thereupon cease to be the subject of the country to which ne pre- viously belonged. Our law makes provision for the case of a British subject becoming a subject of a foreign state by his own act. This will be dealt with later in this report. But it is obviously impos- sible for our law to provide that a person on becoming a British subject shall cease to be the subject of any foreign state. Whether or not naturalization as a British subject is attended with this result must depend upon the law of the country of which the naturalized person was a subject immediately prior to his naturalization. CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 345 The occurrence of cases of double nationality acquired at birth is due mainly to the fundamental difference which exists between those countries whose law is derived mainly from feudal principles, and those countries whose law comes more directly from Roman sources, the former regarding the place of birth as the determining factor in constituting the relation of sovereign and subject, while the latter look to the nationality of the parent, and disregard, more or less, the place of birth. Although the statute law of most countries has in- troduced certain modifications of each of these principles, the differ- ence springing from the original sources of the system of law still remains. To guard effectively against the occurrence of cases of double nationality would require the assimilation in this respect of all the various systems of law prevailing in civilized communities, an ideal which, however desirable, is not likely to be realized. It has been strongly urged that in order to bring the law of this country into harmony with that of most other European nations the legislature should abandon the principle that the mere fact of birth within the dominions confers British nationality. With regard to naturalization, something might be done by conventions with other countries to facilitate the abandonment of a claim to retain as sub- jects persons who become naturalized in the other contracting state. An attempt to pave the way for conventions with other nations was made in the naturalization act, 1870. No effective steps, however, have hitherto been taken in this direction. This subject will .be referred to later in this report. It has also been suggested that the secretary of state, in the exercise of his discretion in granting cer- tificates of naturalization, might have regard to the consideration whether or not the applicant would, on becoming a British subject, be divested of his prior nationality. This suggestion is, we think, worthy of attention, though we recognize that there would be .se- rious practical difficulties in giving general effect to it. We do not think there should be any interference by legislation with the abso- lute discretion of the secretary of state. 5. Leaving these general considerations, we proceed to state briefly the present state of the law of this country whereby the rights and duties of a British subject are acquired and lost. That law consists partly of common law and partly of statute law. To the common law belongs the fundamental principle that any person who is born within His Majesty's dominions is from the moment of his birth a British subject, whatever may be the. nationality of either or both of his parents, .and however temporary and casual the circumstances determining the locality of his birth may have been. 6. The common law regarded the status thus acquired as indelible. " Nemo potest exuere patriam " was the rule of the common law. The act of 1870 altered this rule by providing means for terminating in certain cases and under certain conditions the status of a British subject. These provisions will be dealt with later in this report. This enactment diminishes the force of the objections above re- ferred to, which have been raised to the principle that birth within the British dominions confers British nationality. The considera- tion of the expediency of modifying the common law in this respect is hardly within the terms of the reference to us; but if it were we should be disposed to agree with the views of the majority of the royal commissioners of 1869, and on the whole should not be pre- 346 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. pared to suggest any alteration of the law. Evidence as to the place of birth affords in most cases a simple and easy proof of Brit- ish nationality for which it would be difficult to find a satisfactory substitute. 7. The exceptions to the common-law rule that British nationality • is determined by the place of birth are few, and if carefully ex- amined are not exceptions at all, so far as the principle is concerned. The rule really is that all persons born " within the ligeance " are subjects of the crown. Consequently the child of an alien enemy born in a part of His Majesty's dominions which is at the time in hostile occupation is not a British subject. Again, the child born within the British dominions of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the crown by a foreign sovereign is not a British subject. The limits of this latter exception have not been exactly ascertained. 8. The acquisition of British nationality as a consequence of con- quest or cession of territory lies beyond the scope of this present report. 9. With the exception of the case of the King's son," who seems to be recognized by the common law as a British subject, wherever born, the acquisition of the status of a British subject by parentage rests on statute law. A person whose father or paternal grandfather was born within His Majesty's dominions is- deemed a natural-born British subject, although he himself was born abroad. It is to be observed that it is not accurate to say that the son of a natural-born British subject is in every case himself a British subject. The effect of the statutes, of which the above rule is the result, is that either the father or the paternal grandfather must have been actualiy born within His Majesty's dominions. The statutes referred to are: 25 Edw. Ill, Stat. 2 ; 7 Anne, c. 5, s. 3 ; 4 Geo. II, c. 21, s. 1 ; 13 Geo. Ill, c. 21. 10. We suggest, though the question does not fall strictly within the terms of the reference to us, that these provisions should be repealed and the law consolidated. We think the opportunity might be taken to act oiTthe recommendation of the royal commission of 1869, and that it would be desirable to limit the transmission of British nation- ality to the first generation, by enacting that no person born out of the dominions of the Crown should be a British subject unless his father had been born within the dominions of the Crown and was also at the time of the birth of that person a British subject. A rec- ommendation as to the children of a naturalized British subject born out of the dominions will be found later in this report. Some ques- tion has arisen whether the law as laid down in the above statutes applies throughout His Majesty's dominions. We think that doubt should be removed, and the law, with the suggested modification, made of universal application. 11. A question of some difficulty arises here which ought not to be passed over altogether without notice. It is this : In applying the principle that every person born within the British dominions is invested with British nationality, what is the exact o Perhaps there is also the case of the child, born abroad, of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to a foreign court. See Calvin's case; 2 State Trials, 585. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 847 meaning and extent of the expression " British dominions ? " Is it applicable only to those countries which form part of British terri- tory, or does it include also some or all of the countries wherein His Majesty exercises jurisdiction or authority of a more or less exten- sive character, such as protectorates or spheres of influence ? It seems to us that the principle can apply only to those countries which have become portions of British territory by conquest, cession, or occu- pation, and that it does not apply to countries which do not form any portion of British territory, however large and extensive may be the powers of administration and jurisdiction possesed by the Crown therein, " by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance, or other lawful means." (Foreign Jurisdiction act, 1890, 53 and 54 Vict., c. 37, s. 1.) 12. To the category of persons who are British subjects by reason of their birth having taken place within His Majesty's dominions must be added those who are born on board a British ship. Some doubt exists as to the extent of this rule. There seems to be no doubt that a person is a natural-born British subject who is (a) born on board a British ship of war, wherever such ship may be; (b) born on board a British merchant vessel on the high seas. The principal questions which have been raised are (1) whether a person born on board a British merchant vessel in a port of a foreign state, or in other foreign waters, is a British subject; (2) whether a person born on board a for- eign ship in British territorial waters, or within the body of a county, is a British subject. We think it important that the law in this respect should be declared, and we consider that the simplest rule would be that a person born on a British ship in foreign waters should be a British subject, but that a person born on board a foreign ship should not be deemed to be a British subject merely because the ship was at the time of his birth in British waters. 13. We now come to the consideration of the questions which form the main subject of the reference to us, namely, the present state of the law relating to the acquisition, loss, and reacquisition of British nationality, and whether any and what amendments in that law should be recommended. 14. Prior to the act of 1847 (7 and 8 Vict., c. 66), the only means by which an. alien could acquire any of the distinctive rights of a British subject were by special act of Parliament or by letters of denization. The passing of the act of 1844 and the fuller powers given by the act of 1870 rendered the recourse to these methods' less frequent. Special acts of Parliament conferring British nationality are, however, still from time to time passed. Instances have oc- curred in which such acts have been so imperfectly drafted as to give rise to questions of great difficulty ;md to cause much disap- pointment, especially by the absence of provisions for the naturaliza- tion of the children of the naturalized person. It must be borne in mind that strong objection in point _of principle has been made on more than one occasion in Parliament to the passing of special acts of naturalization. "We think that there will probably be even less oc- casion than there is at present for passing these special acts if a sim- plified and somewhat extended form of naturalization is granted in accordance with our recommendations. We suggest, however, that in order to secure that such special acts should confer the rights which are contemplated the standing orders of the Houses of Parliament 348 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. should include provisions for embodying in private acts of natural- ization the main enactments of the general law, either under the act of 1870 or under the new legislation which we recommend should supersede that statute. In this way the rights and duties of persons naturalized by special act of Parliament and of those dependent on them would be made in all respects identical with those of per- sons naturalized by the certificate of the secretary of state. 15. We think there should be no alteration in the law as regards denization. The grant of any of the rights of a British subject by letters of denization is an ancient prerogative of the Crown; and though there is seldom occasion to resort to it at the present day, we think it ought to be preserved, as it now is by section 13 of the naturalization act of 1870. 16. Naturalization by certificate of the secretary of state was intro- duced in 1844 by the act to amend the laws relating to aliens. (7 and 8 Vict., c. 66.) The only condition imposed by that act was that the applicant should come to reside in some part of Great Britain or Ireland with intent to settle therein. The applicant was required to present a memorial stating his age, profession, trade, or other oc- cupation, and the duration of his residence in Great Britain or Ire- land, and all other grounds on which he sought to obtain any of the rights and capacities of a natural-born British subject. The act made it the duty of the secretary of state to inquire into the circum- stances of each case, to consider the memorial, and the grant or re- fusal of the certificate was in his discretion. In 1856 the secretary of state was advised that it would be lawful to insert in certificates of naturalization a clause to the effect that such certificates were granted upon condition that the grantees should continue to reside permanently in the United Kingdom, and that the certificate should be determinable on the grantee ceasing so to reside. This advice was acted on, but the practice of granting conditional certificates of naturalization was disapproved by the royal commissioners of 1869 and ceased upon the repeal of the act of 1844 by the act of 1870. The secretary of state has been advised that a certificate under the latter act is not revocable on the ground of having been obtained by fraud, and that it is not competent for him to annex any condition, as to residence or otherwise, providing for the avoidance of the certificate for breach of the condition. In a later part of our report we deal with the question whether it is desirable that some provision should be made for the avoidance or determination of a certificate. 17. The main amendments of the law effected by the act of 1870 were : (1) Removal of the restrictions upon the acquisition and holding of real and personal property by aliens in the United Kingdom, except property in British ships. (2) Requirement, as a condition of a grant of a certificate of naturalization, of residence for five years in the United Kingdom, or of service under the Crown for the same period, and of intention of continuing so to reside or serve after naturalization. (3) Limitation of the principle that British nationality is indel- ible (a) by permitting a natural-born British subject, who also at his birth became a subject of a foreign state, to divest himself of British nationality; (h) by making the loss of British nationality CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATKIATION, ETC. 349 a necessary and immediate consequence of voluntary naturalization in a foreign country. (4) Detailed provisions as to the effect of naturalization or loss of nationality by the husband or father upon the status of the wife and children. (5) Provisions for the readmission or renaturalization of a person who had lost his British nationality. 18. In considering the question expressly referred to us, " the doubts and difficulties which have arisen in connexion with the interpretation and administration of the acts relating to naturaliza- tion," and the desirability of their amendment, it is important to bear in mind the principal reasons which operate to induce aliens to apply for admission to British nationality. 19. The reason which formerly afforded the chief motive for be- coming a British subject was the incapacity of aliens to' hold real property and some descriptions of personal property. This inca- pacity, as already stated, no longer exists except in the case of British ships. The disability was partially removed by the act of 1S44 and entirely, with the above exception, by the act of 1870. 20. An alien is incapable of being a member of the privy council, or of either House of Parliament, of holding any municipal office, or of voting at Parliamentary or municipal elections, or of enjoying any office or place of trust either civil or military. A considerable pro- portion of the applications for naturalization made by persons who intend to continue to reside in this country are made for the purpose of obtaining the removal of these disqualifications. 21. In this connexion we may observe that the provisions of sec- tion 3 of the act of settlement (12 and 13 Will. Ill, eh. 2) prohibit- ing a naturalized alien from being a member of the privy council or of either House of Parliament still remain on the statute book; al- though so far as they relate to persons naturalized under the act of 18T0 they are practically superseded by section 7 (3) of that statute. We think that so much of section 3 of the act of settlement as is referred to above should be expressly repealed with regard to all naturalized persons. 22. Speaking generally, commissions in the army and navy are not given to aliens, nor are aliens admitted to civil-service examinations. It is frequently the case that a parent desires naturalization or re- admission to British nationality, mainly for the purpose of removing the disqualification of the children, who, if they reside with the parent, will at once become naturalized with him. 23. It also often happens that an alien residing in this country desires naturalization for himself or his children in order that he or they may obtain the protection accorded in a foreign country to a British subject. The belief, usually mistaken, that naturalization as a British subject protects a person against compulsory military serv- ice in a country to which he still owes allegiance is frequently a rea- son for desiring this protection. The right to the benefit and the liability to the obligation of the provisions of the foreign jurisdiction act, 1890,. and the foreign marriage act, 1892, has been already referred to. 24. The advantages or supposed advantages of obtaining the status of a British subject in a foreign country occasionally give rise to applications for naturalization which are not bona fide. It is by no 350 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. means an uncommon case that a certificate of naturalization is ob- tained by means of what is, in fact, a fraudulent statement of the intention of the applicant. He has really no intention to reside in the United Kingdom; all he wants is that he himself, or perhaps more commonly his son, who is a minor, may possess a document which will, in the eyes of the authorities of a foreign country, estab- lish his title to be a British subject. Experience seems to show that cases of this kind are common, and that the embarrassments to which they give rise are formidable enough to make it desirable that provision should be made for the avoidance, when necessary, of certificates which have been granted on a false and fraudulent statement, either as to actual residence or as to intention to reside. 25. With reference to the amendments required in the act of 1870, it appears "that one of the principal defects in that act arises from the obscurity of the provision contained in section 7 as to the effect, if any, of a certificate of naturalization outside the limits of the United Kingdom. The section provides that : An alien to whom a certificate of naturalization is granted shall in the United Kingdom be entitled to all political and other rights, powers, and privi- leges, and be subject to all obligations, to which a natural-born British subject is entitled or subject in the United Kingdom, with this qualification, thafhe shall not, when within the limits of the foreign state of which he was a subject previously to obtaining his certificate of natural izaton, 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 of that effect. 26. This enactment is so obseurely worded that it has been con- strued in different senses by different authorities. On the one hand, it has been held that the operation of the section is confined to the United Kingdom and ceases so soon as the naturalized person is outside its borders, and consequently that the statute does not confer upon a naturalized alien the status of a British subject outside the United Kingdom either in a foreign country or in a British colony. Other authorities have, however, maintained that the statute confers the status of a British subject everywhere, except when the natu- ralized person is actually within the country of which at the time of naturalization he was, and of which he still remains, a subject. Amongst other difficulties, this obscurity in the construction of this section has been an obstacle in the way of negotiating the conventions contemplated in section 3 of the act of 1870, for the purpose of secur- ing that naturalized persons shall be divested of their former nation- ality. It is impossible to ask a foreign country to deprive its subjects of their nationality unless this country is in a position to offer in return the status of a British subject, recognized everywhere, both within and without His Majesty's dominions. 27. Whatever may be the true construction of this enactment, there is no great difference in practice between natural-born and natural- ized British subjects so far as regards their obligations to any coun- try which may be also entitled to their allegiance. It is frequently the case that a person who is a natural-born British subject— for instance, a person who is born in a foreign country, but whose father' was born in His Majesty's dominions — is also the subject of the foreign coun- try. But the British Government does not regard such a person as entitled to protection against any obligation imposed by the law of the foreign country so long as he remains within the limits of that CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 351 • country. A naturalized person who is also a subject of a foreign state is for all practical purposes exactly in the same position, except that by the terms of the section referred to he is not while in the for- eign country of which he remains a subject " deemed to be a British subject " at all. In the case supposed neither the natural-born nor the naturalized British subject could be protected against military service while actually in the state which claims his allegiance. 28. In our opinion, all differences between the status of a natural- born British subject and of a naturalized British subject should, as far as possible, be abolished. It is especially desirable that a natural- ized alien should, like a natural-born British subject, remain a British subject everywhere and for all purposes unless and until he divests himself of or loses his nationality in one of the ways provided by law. The law of this country can not, of course, operate to con- fer on or divest a person of any status existing under a foreign law, and ought not to purport to do so. The drafting of the naturalization act of 1870 is in some particulars open to criticism on this ground. It follows that the extent and character of the protection, if any, to be afforded a person in any country which, notwithstanding his acquisition of British nationality, still under its laws has a right to his allegiance, should not, and,' indeed, can not, be regulated by mu- nicipal law, but must be regulated by international comity. It is most desirable that cases of double nationality should be reduced within the narrowest limits by the adoption of the principle that naturaliza- tion in one country carries with it the loss of prior nationality; but in so far as this principle is not adopted it will be necessary to con- tinue to act upon the rule, which is at present recognized, that when a person has a double allegiance he is under a paramount obligation to that one of the two countries in which he for the time being is. 29. At present naturalization can be obtained in the United King- dom under the following conditions : (a) A certain period of residence in the United Kingdom or of service under the Crown prior to naturalization is required. (&) There must be a declaration of intention to reside in the United Kingdom or. to serve under the Crown. (e) The granting or withholding of the certificate is in the absolute discretion of the secretary of state. 30. We think that these conditions should be modified in the fol- lowing respects : We see no reason why, if conditions substantially identical with those which qualify for naturalization in the United Kingdom are fulfilled by aliens residing in any other part of His Majesty's domin- ions, the government of the possession in which the alien has satis- fied these conditions should not have power to grant or to recommend to the home government the grant of complete naturalization as a British subject. 31. This result might be attained in different ways. Probably the simplest course would be to enact to the effect that if it appeared to His Majesty in council that under a law in force in any British pos- session the conditions to be fulfilled by aliens before admission to the rights, privileges, and capacities of British subjects to be enjoyed within the limits of the possession included conditions which were substantially the same as those required for the grant of certificates of naturalization under an act of the United Kingdom it should be 352 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. lawful for His Majesty, by order in council, to empower the governor of that possession, in his discretion, to grant to any person on whom the aforesaid rights, privileges, and capacities had been conferred under the local law a certificate of naturalization in a prescribed form, and that certificate should confer upon the grantee the same rights, privileges, and capacities, and impose upon him the same duties, liabilities, and obligations, as those conferred or imposed by, and have the same effect in all respects as, a certificate of naturaliza- tion granted by a secretary of state. It should also be provided that His Majesty in council might re- voke any such order when it appeared that the law of the British possession had been so altered as not to justify the continuance of the order, but that, unless revoked, the order in council should continue in force notwithstanding any amendment or alteration of the law of the possession. In the case of a possession in regard to which no order in council had been made, we think that the governor might have power in his discretion to recommend to the home government, for a certificate of naturalization, any alien whom he could certify to have satisfied within the possession conditions identical mutatis mutandis with those required for naturalization in the United Kingdom, and that the secretary of state might, in his discretion, grant a certificate upon such recommendation. Certificates granted in accordance with the recommendations of this paragraph would confer all the privileges of British nationality both within and without His Majesty's dominions. 32. From time to time, beginning as early as the thirty-fifth year of Charles II, and perhaps earlier, legislatures of British possessions have passed acts purporting to confer naturalization on aliens under various specified conditions. Such of these acts as are still in force are set out in the appendix. In so far as these acts purport to confer upon aliens certain of the rights of natural-born British subjects within the possession no question arises. It has always, for instance, been within the power of the legislature of any possession to confer upon an alien the right to acquire and hold land within the territory affected. But difficult questions have from time to time arisen, and may probably arise in the future, as to the effect of this legislation upon the rights and duties of the persons so naturalized outside the limits of the British possession. For instance, can a person natural- ized locally in British India be convicted in England for a murder committed in France ? Or has he the right to be married before His Majesty's consul-general at Smyrna? These and similar questions, it will be observed, affect the rights and duties of locally naturalized persons. It is another and a different question how far such persons should be recognized as proper subjects for "good offices " as between the British and foreign governments. This is a matter not of law, but of discretion, and need not, in our opinion, be considered-in this report. But we think that the legal position of such persons should be made clear, and we recommend that in substitution for section 16 of the act of 1870 a provision should be enacted to the effect that nothing in the act should affect the power of the legislature of any British possession to confer upon any alien, to be enjoyed by him within the limits of that possession, any of the rights, privileges, or capacities enjoyable therein by persons born within His Majesty's dominions. Taken in connection with the provisions above recommended for creat- CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 353 ing the full status of a British subject, an enactment to this effect would, we think, leave no room for doubt as to the nature and effect of local naturalization. We think it right to add that although the conferring of the rights and privileges of British subjects within the limits of any possession of the King, but not elsewhere, is usually termed " naturalization," that expression would more properly be limited to the grant of the status of a British subject which is en- titled to recognition everywhere, both within and without His Majesty's dominions. Indeed, a case has occurred in which the fact of a person having been admitted to the status of a British subject under the law of a colony has been held, probably through mis- understanding of the limited character of the rights conferred, to pre- vent the resumption of his nationality in the country of his origin. 33. If these principles are adopted, certificates of naturalization conferring the status of a British subject in all parts of the world would be given on similar conditions: (1) By a secretary of state in the United Kingdom; (2) by the governor of a British possession under the power above recommended. The legislature of each British possession would, as at present, be free to determine the conditions, the mode, and the effect within the possession of what is known as local naturalization. 34. We now pass to the consideration of the amendments of the law which appear to us to be required in reference to (a) the acqui- sition by an alien of British nationality; (b) the loss by a British subject, whether natural-born or naturalized, of British nationality. 35. We do not think it is necessary to maintain the distinction made in the act of 1870, section 8, between " readmission " and " naturaliza- tion." A person who has become an alien under the provisions of the act must before he or she is qualified for readmission fulfill the same conditions as are required for naturalization. We see no sufficient reason for distinguishing between a statutory and any other alien, and consider that it would tend to the simplification of the law if the provisions of section 8 were repealed and not reenacted. 36. The first condition required by the naturalization act, 1870, for obtaining a certificate of naturalization is that the alien should, within such limited time before making his application as may have been allowed by one of His Majesty's principal secretaries of state either by general order or on any special occasion, have resided in the United Kingdom for a period or not less than five years or have been in the service of the Crown for a period of not less than five years. We see no reason to suggest any alteration of this provision, except so far as is necessary to meet the case of recommendation to the secretary of state by governors of British possessions as proposed in paragraph 31. 37. The next condition required is that the alien applying for naturalization must intend when naturalized either to reside in the United Kingdom or to serve under the Crown. We think that this condition should be altered by substituting the words " the King's dominions " for " United Kingdom." We see no reason why residence in any part of His Majesty's dominions should not be sufficient to satisfy the condition. 38. These are the only statutory conditions required at present for a certificate of naturalization. A question above referred to here arises, viz, whether any and what provision should be made for the H. Doc. 326, 59-2 23 354 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. avoidance of a certificate found to have been obtained by fraudulent representations. Those representations may be false either as regards the alleged facts as to residence or as to the existence of the alleged in- tention to reside. Residence is a fact capable -of proof. Intention to reside is not equally capable of proof, and many cases have oc- curred where subsequent events have shown that no such intention Could, in fact, have been entertained. There are many cases where naturalization has been sought for the sole purpose of obtaining pro- tection in a foreign country in which the naturalized person intended to reside. There is no power under the act of 1870 to set aside or revoke a certificate of naturalization which has once been granted by reason of its having been obtained by false and fraudulent statements of fact as to actual residence or as to intention to reside. 39. We think that there should be power, vested, as the case may be, in the secretary of state or in the governor of a British posses- sion to which such an order in council as has been above referred to applies, to revoke a certificate of naturalization which was proved to his satisfaction to have been obtained by false or fraudulent repre- sentation and that the certificate thereupon become void. 40. Except as hereafter mentioned, we think that it should be made clear that persons under disability, i. e., minors, married women, idiots, and lunatics, should not be capable of receiving certificates of naturalization. 41. Certificates of naturalization granted under the act of 1870 should, we think, operate as if granted under the new act; and the secretary of state should be empowered to grant, if he thinks fit, a certificate under the new act to any person holding a certificate under the act of 1844 or who has been naturalized by a special act. 42. The act of 1870 contains a provision enabling the secretary of state to grant a certificate of British nationality to " a person with respect to whose nationality as a British subject a doubt exists." Different views have been entertained as to the effect and scope of this provision. It has on the one hand been regarded as being introduced simply in order to meet the case of a person who might possibly be already a British subject, but who had fulfilled the conditions neces- sary for naturalization, by providing that the grant of a certificate of naturalization should not be evidence that he was not a British sub- ject prior to his naturalization. The provision has, on the other hand, been regarded as having a much wider operation and as en- titling the secretary of state, in any case in which he might consider a doubt existed whether or not a« person was a British subject, to grant a special certificate of naturalization, though the conditions prescribed by the act have not been fulfilled. We think it should be made clear that the jurisdiction of the secretary of state extends only to the granting of a certificate in such a form as not to prejudice the question whether or not the applicant was already a British subject. The certificate should contain a statement of the existence of the doubt, but in all other respects the conditions ordinarily required for the grant of a certificate should be observed. This is in fact in accord- ance with established practice. 43. Having dealt with the acquisition of nationality, we next pro- ceed to deal with the ways in which nationality may 'be lost. In the law as it at present stands the provisions relating to the case of a natural-born and of a naturalized British subject are to some extent CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 355 different. By section 4 of the naturalization act, 1870, a person who is a British subject by reason of his having been born within the King's dominions but who also became at birth (by reason of parent- age or otherwise) a subject of a foreign state may, if of full age and not under any disability, make a declaration of alienage, and shall from and after the making of such declaration cease to be a British subject. There is a similar provision with regard to a person born out of His Majesty's dominions to a father being a British subject. This sec- tion, as it stands, is open to criticism on the ground that it appears to assume that in every case a person born out of His Majesty's do- minions to a father who is a British subject would be himself a British subject. This, however, is not always so, as has already been pointed out. 44. The object of this section is to. obviate as far as possible the complications arising from double nationality, which have been already referred to, by allowing a person who is a natural-born British subject and also by birth a subject of a foreign state the right of divesting himself of his British nationality. We think these pro- visions should be simplified and redrafted, but we do not suggest any alteration of the law. The only case in which a person who has become a British subject by naturalization is empowered to make a declaration of alienage is the peculiar case provided for by section 3 of the act of 1870 and referred to in paragraph 26 of this report. 45. Nationality may also be lost when a British subject, whether naturalized or natural-born, becomes voluntarily naturalized in a foreign country. The expression " voluntarily naturalized " is not entirely free from, obscurity. Does it imply some act done for the express and primary purpose of obtaining a foreign nationality, or an act which, though voluntary, is not done for this express purpose, but for some otlier object to which change of nationality is attached as an incident? For instance, different views have been entertained by different legal experts whether the marriage of a British subject with a foreign woman, the legal consequence of which in her country is to invest the husband with her nationality, is voluntary naturalization within the meaning of the section. Or, again, to take an extreme case, suppose that by the law a of a foreign state all persons landing on its shores at once become its subjects, would the act of landing with or without a knowledge of the consequence be a voluntary naturalization 2 We think that the law should be made more definite and that British nationality should not be lost unless the person who is natu- ralized in the foreign country has expressly applied for naturalization or done some act from which acceptance of the foreign nationality may reasonably be inferred. 6 46. The mode in which nationality may be lost by persons under diteability will be dealt with in a later portion of this report. 47. We come now to consider the questions which have given rise to the greatest difficulty in practice — the effect of naturalization upon the status of dependent persons. 48. First as to the wife. By section 16 of the act of 1844 (7 and 8 Vict., c. 66) it was provided that any woman married to a natural- o See pp. 64, 65, of the Appendix to the Report of the Royal Commission of 1809. Case of New Granada. 6 See note by Sir Dennis Fitzpatrick, infra. 356 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC* born subject, or person naturalized, should be deemed and taken to be herself naturalized and have all the rights and privileges of a natural- born British subject. No provision was made for the case of a natural-born or naturalized British woman marrying an alien. The common law still governed her status, and she did not lose her British nationality. The act of 1870 adopted the general principle that the nationality of the married woman should be that of her husband: "A married woman shall be deemed to be a subject of the state of which her husband is for the time being a subject." 49. We do not propose any substantial alteration in the law. We think, however, that it should be so expressed as to purport to deal only w}th the question whether or not the woman becomes or ceases to be a British subject according to the law of this country, and not to attempt to define her status as regards the law of other countries. All that our law is concerned with is whether the woman is an alien or a British subject, and when and by what means she ceases to be, or becomes, the one or the other. The substantial mat- ters are that a woman who is an alien becomes a British subject by marrying a British subject; that a woman who is a British subject ceases to be a British subject by marrying an alien; and that when- ever during the continuance of a marriage the husband becomes or ceases to be a British subject the wife at the same moment becomes or ceases to be a British subject. 50. It will be convenient here to consider the effect upon the status of the woman of the dissolution of marriage by death or divorce. The act of 1870 is not clear as to the effect of dissolution of marriage in these cases. At present, if a woman is married to a British sub- ject or to an alien and the marriage is terminated by his death, she continues to be a British subject or an alien, as the case may be, until something further occurs to alter her status. The same probably holds good when the marriage is terminated by divorce. We think, however that the position of a divorced woman should be made clear. 51. A question arises whether in the case of a woman who has lost her British nationality by marrying an alien, and has become a widow, there should be any relaxation of the ordinary conditions which must be fulfilled before she can be readmitted to British nationality. At present a widow may obtain a certificate of read- mission to British nationality in the manner prescribed by section 8 of the act of 1870. This is in practice held to impose upon the widow the same conditions as to residence and intention to reside as are imposed upon any alien applying for a certificate of naturalization. The principal reason for any relaxation of' such conditions is to be found in the facilities which might result to her infant children to become more speedily British subjects, and so to relieve them from any disqualifications on this ground from entering the public service. The latter question, however, we propose to deal with otherwise. Apart from this indirect advantage, we see no reason why a woman who has lost her nationality by marrying an alien should be placed on a footing different from that of any other alien, and we therefore recommend that, as is in fact required at present, a woman in this position before again becoming a British subject should fulfil the conditions required for naturalization. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 357 52. We have next to deal with the effect of naturalization of a parent upon the status of children born (1) before, (2) after, natural- ization. 53. The present law on this subject is contained in subsections 3, 4, and 5 of section 10 of the naturalization act, 1870. There has been some conflict of opinion in regard to the strict interpretation of this section, but in recent practice its effect has been taken to be as follows : Any child who is born in a foreign country, whether before or after naturalization of the parent, and who during infancy becomes resident with the father or mother (being a widow) in any part of the United Kingdom, is deemed to be a naturalized British subject. Conversely, where a father or a mother (being a widow) has lost British nationality any child who during infancy and after the nat- uralization of the parents abroad has become resident in the country where the father or mother is naturalized, and has, according to the law of that country, become naturalized therein, becomes a subject of that country and thereupon ceases to be a British subject. There is also a provision for resumption of British nationality by a child whose parent has been readmitted to that status, but as we propose to dispense with the distinction between naturalization and readmis- sion this needs no further notice. 54. It will be seen that the test at present of the acquisition of British nationality by an infant is (1) the naturalization of the par- ent: (2) residence with the parent in the United Kingdom. Loss of British nationality depends (1) on loss by parent; (2) on residence in the country where the parent is naturalized; (3) on the law of that country recognising the child as also naturalized therein. It appears to us that the law as it stands is needlessly complicated, and that it leaves undefined the amount and character of residence necessary in each case to affect the nationality. We think it would be desirable to adopt a clearer and more easily applied test of the nationality of minor children. 55. Dealing first with the case of children born before the naturali- zation of the parent, we see no reason why, if the parent so desires and the secretary of state approves, such children should not be nat- uralized at the same time with the parent and their names included in his certificate. All that seems necessary is that the parent should make a declaration of his intention that the child sought to be natural- ized with him should reside with him in His Majesty's dominions. It will be in the discretion of the secretary of state to include or not to include the minor in the certificate. The nationality of the child would if this recommendation is adopted be provable at once by the evidence of the certificate itself, and would not depend upon ques- tions of law and fact which may be more or less uncertain and diffi- cult to ascertain. But we think that it is right that after the child comes of age he should within a time to be limited (say one year) have the option of becoming an alien by declaration of alienage. The power given to the secretary of state should be extended to nat- uralizing authorities in British dominions. oAnson's History of the Constitution (Part II, p. 69) ; Dicey's Conflict of Laws, p. 191 ; and Hall's Foreign Jurisdiction of the British Crown, p. 27. 358 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 56. If our recommendation is adopted that the distinction between a natural-born and a naturalized British subject should be as far as possible abolished, it should be enacted that every child born to a naturalized father after naturalization, whether born within His Majesty's dominions or not, is a British subject. The requirement of residence with the naturalized parent which at present exists should, we think, be abolished. 57. A case of hardship sometimes arises when a woman who is a British subject has lost her nationality by marrying an alien, and is left a widow with infant children. Her home and connexions being in the United Kingdom she desires her infant sons to enter the British army or navy or some branch of the civil service. She can- not however be readmitted to British nationality without satisfying the requirement of five years' residence, and consequently the sons cannot obtain the necessary naturalization by " becoming resident " with her. The difficulty has been hitherto met by the secretary of state feeling himself at liberty to grant a certificate of naturalization to a minor for the purpose of enabling him to enter the public service. It is, however, doubtful whether the act of 1870 contemplates the grant of a certificate to a minor at all. We think this power should be expressly given, and that the secretary of state should be entitled in suitable cases, for special reasons which he may consider suffi- cient, to grant to a minor a certificate of naturalization without ful- filment of the conditions ordinarily required. 58. With regard to the effect upon a minor child of loss of British nationality by the father, whether by declaration of alienage or other- wise, we think that the principle that the nationality of a minor child should depend upon that of the father should govern, and that the child should lose his British nationality at the same moment that his father becomes an alien. Any hardship which this rule might work in individual cases would, we think, be sufficiently obviated by the power above recommended to be given to the secretary of state to grant certificates for sufficient reasons to minors. 59. The status of the children of a widow of a British subject who loses her nationality by marriage with a subject of a foreign state is somewhat obscure under the provisions of section 10 (3) of the act of 1870. According to one view, if she not only become an alien by English law, but also becomes a subject of foreign state, and the child by her former husband becomes resident in the foreign country, and also becomes naturalized therein, such child becomes a subject of that state and loses British nationality. A doubt has, however, been expressed whether this provision applies to the case of a widow who loses her nationality by marriage with an alien. We recommend that this obscurity should be cleared up. We are not entirely agreed as to the most desirable amendment of the law. The majority of the committee think that the marriage of a widow — being a British sub- ject — with an alien should not affect the national status of her chil- dren, if any, by her first husband, whether or not they became resi- dents in and subjects of the country of the second husband. To meet the case where the children as a fact follow the mother and are in- vested with the nationality of the stepfather, they think that such children should be empowered on coming of age to make a declara- tion of alienage. The minority are of opinion that it would be more CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 359 consistent with principle to provide that when a widow ceases to be a British subject, by reason of her marriage with an alien, her infant children should also cease to be British subjects, but should be entitled to resume British nationality by a declaration to be made within one year after coming of age. 60. We have to acknowledge the very valuable services of our sec- retary, Mr. Wheeler, especially in collecting and arranging the voluminous materials which it has been necessary for us to consider. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS. 1. We recommend that the existing statute law relating to the acquisition and loss of British nationality should be consolidated, and that the statutes 25 Edw. Ill, Stat. 2; 7 Anne, c. 5, s:3; 12 and 13 Will. Ill, c. 2 (part) ;4 Geo. II, c. 21, s. 1; 13 Geo. Ill, c. 21; 33 Vict., c. 14; 33 and 34 Vict., c. 102; 35 and 36 Vict., c. 39; 58 and 59 Vict., c. 43, should be repealed. 2. We recommend that the existing law as to acquisition of British nationality by parentage should be reenacted in a simpler form, with this exception, that where the father was born out of His Majesty's dominions a child also born out of such dominions should not be a British subject. We also recommend that the law as to birth on board a British ship should be declared as stated in paragraph 12 of this report. 3. We recommend that provision should be made by legislation enabling a secretary of state or the governor of a British possession to confer the status of a British subject upon persons who ful- fil the requisite conditions in any part of the British dominions, and that the status so conferred should be recognised by British law every- where, both within and without His Majesty's dominions. This pro- vision should be without prejudice to the power of the legislature of any British possession to provide for the conferring upon any persons, under such conditions as it might see fit, the whole or any of the rights of British subjects within its own territory. 4. We recommend that the conditions necessary for the acquisition and loss of the status of a British subject should remain as at present, with the modifications as to residence, revocability of certificate, and otherwise, mentioned in detail in the report. 5. We recommend that the law as to the acquisition and loss of the status of a British subject by persons under disability should be sim- plified and modified in the manner stated in detail in the report. We have the honour to be, sir, your obedient servants, Kenelm E. Digbt. F. H. VlLLIEES. D. FlTZPATRICK." W. E. Davidson. H. Bertram Cox. W. Wheeler, Secretary. o Subject to this, that I am not satisfied that what is suggested at the end of par. 45 is sufficient to get rid of the ambiguities arising from the present law. See my note of the 16th July, 1901, appended. D. F. P. 360 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. NOTE BY SIR DENNIS FITZPA.TRICK. Section 6 of the naturalization act, 1870, provides that a British subject who has " voluntarily become naturalized " in a foreign state shall cease to be a British subject. This provision is clear enough, and right enough, in so far as it applies to cases in which a British subject applies to a foreign state for what may be called " naturalization in solemn form," or in which, as, e. g., under the first clause of article 9 of the amended French code, he resorts to some other official procedure for the purpose of acquiring a foreign nationality. But suppose a British subject, mainly with a view to his own com- fort or happiness, or advancement, takes, in a foreign country, some action, having in itself no relation whatever to the acquisition of a national character, as, e. g., if he sets up some sort of business there, or acquires some sort of property there, or marries a woman of the country, or if he merely resides there for a certain time ; and suppose the law of that country chooses, thereupon, ipso facto, to confer or impose upon him its nationality, either absolutely, or unless he has taken some step to ward off this result. In regard to such a case two questions present themselves, viz: First, are we to hold that that British subject has " voluntarily become naturalized " within the meaning of section 6 of our act? and, second, if we are, ought that section to be allowed to stand as it is without some amendment? As to the former question, the answer to it, we have been advised, is in the affirmative, provided the British subject had actual notice of the foreign law; otherwise in the negative. As to the latter question, assuming, as we are bound to do, that the answer to the former ques- tion is correct, I think that the law stands in need of amendment. To say nothing of the awkwardness of making the retention or loss of a man's British national character dependent on the state of his knowl- edge at a certain point of time, it seems to me that, even if the British subject concerned has notice of the foreign law, it is, under the cir- cumstances, a ven r harsh thing to deprive him of his British nationality. I may observe that the peculiar provisions of the foreign laws to which I refer have been condemned, both as offending against the principle that a man should not be invested with a new national character unless he actually applies for or accepts it, and also as laying a trap for the unwary." But it is open to every state to enact such laws if it thinks fit, and if one of our subjects thought- lessly brings himself within the operation of such a law, he must forfeit all claim to our protection so long as he remains within the limits of the state of which he has thus become a subject. This is the necessary consequence of his thoughtlessness, and he must accept it; but it is not a necessary consequence that he should be deprived of his British nationality. No doubt if he retains it we have the awkward result of a double nationality, but I do not think that is, under the circumstances, a sufficiently strong reason for depriving' a See Cogordan, pp. 117-118, and Hall, Foreign Jurisdiction, pp. 46 and 47. See also Calvo, § 644. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 361 him of his British nationality. The position was discussed in an article by M. Robinet de Clery in the year 1875 with reference to provisions of the Code Civil as they then stood, and it was further discussed in 1886 in the debates on the amending law which was passed in 1889. The view taken was that the acquisition by a French subject of a foreign nationality otherwise than by naturali- zation in solemn form should not entail the loss of his French nation- ality unless he had either applied for or accepted that foreign nation- ality;' and in the law of 1889 it was provided (art. 17, cl. 1) that the acquisition by him of a foreign nationality " par l'effet de la loi " (as distinguished from its acquisition by naturalization in sol- emn form) should not have this effect except where he obtained the foreign nationality on his own application (sur sa demande)." I would suggest that, following pretty closely this example, there should be substituted for the present provision of section 6 a clause to the effect that a British subject should cease to be such if he, not being under any disability, acquired the nationality of a foreign State in pursuance of an official procedure established for that pur- pose, and in the course of which he applied for or accepted that nationality. This would provide for all ordinary cases that it "seems desirable to hit, but there would remain two exceptional cases for consid- eration. The first is the case of a Britsh subject acquiring the nationality of a foreign state ipso facto by accepting service under the govern- ment of that state. I think it should be provided that such a man should cease to be a British subject unless he had accepted such service with the pre- vious consent of the British Government. The second case is the rare one of a British subject having the nationality of a foreign state conferred on him personally, say, in recognition of eminent services, by a special grant of the legislature or other authority in that state which, so far as could be seen, would seem to have been made spontaneously and without any sort of appli- cation or acceptance on his part. 6 If it is thought necessary to pro- vide for this case it would probably be best to enact that the person so naturalized should cease to be a British subject on the expiration of one month from the date of the naturalization, unless within that time he sent to the proper authority of the foreign state a protest against the naturalization or the British Government assented to the naturalization. D. FlTZPATKICK. 16th July, 1901. a Journal du droit international privg for 1875, p. 80. Weiss droit inter- national prive, T. i., pp. 450-452. » See Weiss, op. eit, pp. 446, 447. 362 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA. Mr. Bray, consul-general, Melbourne, Australia, to the Assistant Secretary of State, September 1, 1906. American Consulate-General, Melbourne, Australia, September 1, 1906. Sir : In reply to circular instructions, dated July 9, 1906, in regard to citizenship in foreign countries, I beg to report as to the Australian commonwealth as follows : 1. The laws relating to citizenship in Australia are contained in the following sections of the naturalization act of Great Britain, 1870, and the Australian constitution and naturalization acts : Section 16 of the naturalization act, 1870 (Great Britain and Ireland), reads: 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 law, but shall be subject to be confirmed or disallowed by Her Majesty in the same manner and subject to the same rules in, and subject to which Her Majesty has power to confirm or disallow any other laws, statutes, or ordinances in that possession. Section 51 (XIX) of the Commonwealth of Australia constitution act is as follows : The Parliament shall, subject to this constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth, with respect to * * * naturalization and aliens. A copy of the naturalization act, dated October 13, 1903, which was enacted pursuant to that power, is forwarded herewith. Section 117 of the Australian constitution act, which also has a bearing on the matter, is as follows : A subject of the Queen, resident in any state, shall not be subject in any other state to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in any other state. 2. The only provision applicable to the means by which citizenship in Australia is lost is section 11 of the naturalization act referred to above. 3. There is no Australian law in regard to the renunciation and reacquisition of citizenship. 4. Australian citizenship is not affected by residence in foreign parts. 5. As Australian citizens are British subjects, the duty of protect- ing them abroad is performed by the foreign representatives of the British Government. John P. Bray, Consul-General. [Enclosure.] AN ACT RELATING TO NATURALIZATION. [Assented to 13th October, 1903.] Be it enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, as follows: 1. This act may be cited as the naturalization act, 1903. 2. This act shall commence on a day to be fixed by proclamation^ [« Proclaimed to commence January 1, 1904.] CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 368 3. In this act, unless the contrary intention appears — " British subject " means a natural-born British subject or a naturalized person. " Certificate of naturalization " means a certificate of naturalization granted under this act, and being at the time when it is relied upon in connection with any provision of this act unrevoked. " Justice of the peace " means a justice of the peace of the commonwealth or of a State. " Naturalized " means naturalized under this act. " Statutory declaration " means a statutory declaration within the meaning of any law of the commonwealth, or of the State in which the declaration is made relating to statutory declarations. " The minister " means the minister for external affairs. 4. A person who has before the passage of this act obtained in a State or in a colony which has become a State a certificate of naturalization or letters of naturalization shall be deemed to be naturalized. 5. A person resident in the commonwealth, not being a British subject, and not being an aboriginal native of Asia, Africa, or the islands of the Pacific, excepting New Zealand, who intends to settle in the commonwealth, and who (a) has resided in Australia continuously for two years immediately preceding the application; or (6) has obtained in the United Kingdom a certificate of naturalization or letters of naturalization, may apply to the governor-general for a certificate of naturalization. 6. (1) An applicant under paragraph (o) of the preceding section shall produce in support of his application (o) his own statutory declaration stating his name, age, birthplace, occupation, and residence, the length of his residence in Australia, and that he intends to settle in the commonwealth; and (6) a certificate signed by a justice of the peace, a postmaster, a teacher of a state school, or an officer of police that the applicant is known to him and is a person of good repute. (2) An applicant under paragraph (6) of the preceding section shall produce in support of his application — (a) His certificate or letters of naturalization; and (6) His own statutory declaration that he is the person named in the certifi- cate or letters that he obtained the certificate or letters without any fraud or intentional false statement that the signature and the seal (if any) thereto are, to the best of his knowledge and belief, genuine, and that he intends to settle in the commonwealth. 7. The governor -general in council, if satisfied with the evidence adduced, shall consider the application, and may, with or without assigning any reason, in his discretion grant or withhold a certificate of naturalization, as he thinks most conducive to the public good. Provided that in the case of an applicant who has not obtained in the United Kingdom a certificate of naturalization or letters of naturalization the governor- general shall not issue the certificate until he has received from the applicant the certificate of a justice of the high court or a judge of a court of a State, or a police stipendiary or special magistrate, that the applicant has before him taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance in the form in the schedule to the constitution. 8. A person to whom a certificate of naturalization is granted shall in the commonwealth be entitled to all political and other rights, powers, and privi- leges and be subject to all obligations to which a natural-born British subject is entitled or subject in the commonwealth. Provided that where by any provision of the constitution or of any act or State constitution or act a distinction is made between the rights, powers, or privileges of natural-born British subjects and those of persons naturalized in the commonwealth or in a state, the rights, powers, and privileges conferred by this section shall for the purposes of that provision be only those (if any) to which persons so naturalized are therein expressed to be entitled. 9. A woman who, not being a British subject, marries a British subject, shall in the commonwealth be deemed to be thereby naturalized and have the same rights, powers, and privileges, and be subject to the same obligations as a per- son who has obtained a certificate of naturalization. 10. An infant, not being a natural-born British subject (a) whose father or whose mother (being a widow or divorced) has obtained a certificate of nat- uralization; or (6) whose mother is married to a natural-born British subject or to a person who has obtained a certificate of naturalization, and who has at £$64 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. any time resided in Australia with such father or mother, shall in the com- monwealth be deemed to be naturalized and have the same rights, powers, and privileges and be subject to the same obligations as a person who has obtained a certificate of naturalization. 11. Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the governor-general that a cer- tificate of naturalization has been obtained by any untrue statement of fact or intention, the governor-general may revoke the certificate, which shall thereupon be and be taken to have been pf no effect with respect either to the person who obtained the certificate or to any person naturalized by virtue. thereof, and shall on demand be delivered up to the minister. Provided that the revocation shall not affect rights previously acquired by any other person. 12. (1) The minister shall (a) enroll as of record memorials of all certifi- cates of naturalization granted under this act; (6) cancel all certificates of naturalization which have been revoked; (c) cause to be made indexes of the certificates of naturalization and permit any person at all reasonable times to inspect the indexes and to make copies of the certificates on payment of the prescribed fee; (d) cause to be laid before both houses of the parliament an- nually a return snowing the number of persons to whom certificates of nat- uralization have been granted under this act, the nations to which they be- longed, and whence they came. (2) A person to whom a certificate of naturalization is granted shall not be liable to any fee or charge in respect thereof. 13. From the commencement of this act the right to issue certificates of nat- uralization in the commonwealth shall be exclusively vested in the government of the commonwealth, and no certificate of naturalization or letters of naturali- zation issued after the commencement of this act under any state act shall be of any effect. 14. (1) The governor-general may make regulations prescribing all matters which by this act are required or permitted to be prescribed, or which are neces- sary or convenient to be prescribed for giving effect to this act. (2) AH such regulations shall be notified in the Gazette, and shall thereupon have the force of law. (3) All such regulations shall be laid before both houses of the parliament within thirty days after the making thereof, if the parliament be then sitting, and if not, then within thirty days after the next meeting of the parliament. BAHAMAS. [Enclosure in despatch from Mr. Knowles, vice-consul at Nassau, September 5, 1906.] MEMORANDUM ON THE CONDITIONS ON WHICH ALIENS MAY ACQUIRE THE STATUS OF BRITISH SUBJECTS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE' COLONY. Any alien may present a memorial to the governor in council, stat- ing the age, profession, trade, or other occupation of the memorialist, and the duration of his residence in the colony, and all other grounds on which he seeks to obtain the rights of a natural-born British subject. This memorial is considered by the governor in council, and the governor is empowered, with the advice of the council, to grant a cer- tificate under the great seal of the colony. Before such certificate is granted the oath of allegiance must be taken. This certificate must be recorded in the office of the public secretary and registrar of records for the colony and certain fees paid into the treasury before it is handed over to the memorialist. Since April 11, 1872, real and personal property of every description may be taken and held and acquired and disposed of by aliens m all respects as by a natural-born subject. Title to property, may also be derived through, from, or in succession to an alien. An alien may not own a British ship. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 365 [Enclosure in despatch from Mr. Knowles, vice-consul at Nassau, September 5, '1906.] The colonial secretary to Mr. Knowles, August 17, 1906. Colonial Secretary's Office, Nassau, August 17, 1906. Sir : In reply to your letter of the 8th instant I have the honor to inform you that, on all the points on which information is sought in the circular of the 9th of July from the Department of State (here- with returned), the law of this colony is the law of the United King- dom, with two exceptions, viz : (1) In pursuance of the powers conferred by the imperial act for the naturalization of aliens (10 and 11 Vic, ch. 83), now replaced by the naturalization act, 1870, the colonial legislature in the year 1848 passed the naturalization act of that year which defines the con- ditions on which aliens may acquire the status of British subjects within the limits of the colony. (2) By the naturalization (amendment) No. 2 act, 1872, provision is made for local regulations governing the exercise of powers granted to judicial officers and governors in British possessions with reference to declarations of alienage and certificate of readmission to British nationality ; but no such regulations have yet been made. (3) With reference to question 5, it is the practice of the colonial government, when its assistance is sought for the protection of a native or resident of the colony in a foreign country, to communicate directly with the British diplomatic or consular representative in the country, and" not through the Imperial Government. I have, etc., W. Hart Bennett, Colonial Secretary. (No. 140, llth Vict., Ch. 4.) AN ACT FOR FACILITATING THE NATURALIZATION OF ALIENS. Maech 22nd, 1848. Whereas in and by an act of the imperial Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland, passed in the tenth and eleventh years of your majesty's reign, entitled "An act for the naturalization of aliens," it is, amongst other things, enacted and declared that all laws, stat- utes, and ordinances which shall hereafter be made and enacted by the legislatures of any of Her Majesty's colonies or possessions abroad for imparting to any person or persons the privileges, or any of the privileges, of naturalization, to be by any such person or persons exercised and enjoyed within the limits of any such col- onies or possessions, respectively, shall within such limits have the force and authority of law, any law, statute, or usage to the con- trary notwithstanding. And whereas it is expedient that the powers of the said act of Parliament vested in colonial legislatures should o Text as printed in the Appendix to the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee, Pari. Pap. (1901), Cd. 723. 366 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. be exercised by the legislature of this colony, and that an act should be passed for the purpose of affording greater facility for the natu- ralization of aliens than now by law exists. May it therefore please Your Majesty that it may be enacted, and be it enacted, by his Ex- cellency George Benvenuto Mathew, esquire, governor and com- mander in chief in and over the Bahama Islands, the legislative council and assembly of the said islands, and it is hereby enacted and ordained, by the authority of the same, that upon obtaining the certificate and taking the oath hereinafter prescribed every alien now residing in, or who shall hereafter come to reside in any part of this colony, shall enjoy within the colony all the rights and capacities which a natural-born subject of the United Kingdom can enjoy or transmit within the said colony. II. And be it enacted, that it shall be lawful for any such alien as aforesaid to present to the governor in council a memorial stating the age, profession, trade, or other occupation of the memorialist and the duration of his residence in the colony, and all other the grounds on which he seeks to obtain the rights and capacities of a natural- born British subject, and praying the said governor to grant to the memorialist the certificate hereinafter mentioned. ■ III. And be it enacted, that every such memorial shall be consid- ered by the governor in council, who shall inquire into the circum- stances of each case and receive all such evidence as shall be afforded by affidavit or otherwise as such governor, with the advice of the council, may deem necessary or propose for proving the truth of the allegations contained in such memorial, and that the said gov- ernor, with the advice of the said council, if he shall" so think fit, may, upon the memorialist taking the oath hereinafter prescribed, issue a certificate under the great seal of the colony reciting such of the contents of the memorial as he shall consider to be true and material, as also the fact that the memorialist had taken and sub- scribed the oath by this act required to be taken and subscribed, and granting to the memorialist all the rights and capacities of a natu- ral-born subject within the colony. IV. And be it enacted, that before any certificate as aforesaid shall be granted the memorialist to whom rights and capacities are in- tended to be granted by such certificate shall take and subscribe the following oath (that is to say), I, A. B., do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, and will defend her to the utmost of my power against all conspiracies and attempts whatever which may be made against her person, Crown, or dignity, and I will do my utmost en- deavour to disclose and make known to Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, all treasons and traitorous conspiracies which may be formed against her or them, and I do faithfully promise to maintain, support, and defend to the utmost of my power the succession of the Crown, which succession by an act entitled an act for the further limitation of the Crown and better securing the rights and privileges of the subject is and stands limited to the Princess Sophia, electress of Hanover, and the heirs of the body being Protestants hereby ut- terly renouncing and abjuring any obedience or allegiance unto any other person claiming or pretending a right to the Crown of this CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 367 realm, so help me God ; which oath shall be taken and subscribed by such memorialist, and shall be duly administered to him or her before the clerk of the council for these islands — if such oath shall be taken and subscribed in the island of New Providence or before any one of Her Majesty's justices of the peace for these islands or for any dis- trict thereof — if such oath shall be taken and subscribed at any other island of this government, and in the latter case the justice of the peace administering the oath shall grant to the person taking and subscribing it a certificate of his or her having taken and subscribed such oath accordingly. V. And be it enacted, that all certificates granted under this act shall be recorded in the office of the public secretary and registrar of records for the colony. VI. And be it enacted, that the fees payable in respect of the sev- eral proceedings hereby authorised shall be fixed and regulated by the governor in council and shall be paid into the public treasury of these islands in aid of the expenses of the government thereof. VII. And be it enacted, that the word " governor " in this act shall extend and apply to the person lawfully administering the govern- ment of these islands for the time being, and the words " clerk of the council " shall extend and apply to the person discharging t] e duties of that office for the time being. [35 Viet., Cap. 20.] AN ACT SUPPLEMENTARY TO THE IMPERIAL STATUTE (33 VICT., C. 14), TO AMEND THE LAW RELATING TO THE LEGAL CONDITION OP ALIENS) AND BRITISH SUBJECTS.® (Assented to 23d May, 1872.) Whereas in and by an act of the Imperial Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland, passed in the thirty-third year of Her Majesty's reign, designated " the naturalization act, 1870," provision is made for taking declaration of alienage and of British nationality and for granting certificates of readmission to British nationality, not only in the United Kingdom, but elsewhere in Her Majesty's dominions, and power is granted to certain judicial officers in the British posses- sions to take such declarations and to the governors of such posses- sions to grant such certificates. And whereas the said act was amended by an act passed in the same year designated the naturalization oaths act, 1870, and the two acts are collectively designated the " naturalization acts, 1870." And whereas an act was passed during the present session of assembly making provision for carrying into effect the said acts of Parliament, but in consequence of a clerical error in the engrossing thereof the meaning of its provisions is obscure and doubtful, and it is expedient that there should be further legislation on the subject, "Text as printed in the Appendix to the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee. Pari. Pap. (1901), Cd. 723. 368 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. may it therefore please the Queen's most Excellent Majesty that it may be enacted, and be it enacted, by his honor Captain George Cumine Strahan, Eoyal Artillery, administrator of the government of the Bahama Islands, the legislative council and assembly of the said islands, and it is hereby enacted and ordained by the authority of the same, as follows : I. The governor may, acting by and with the advice of Her Majesty's executive council, provide by regulations for the following matters : 1. The registration in the office of the registrar of records of all declarations taken and certificates granted and oaths of allegiance administered in the colony under the said acts. 2. The proof in any legal proceedings of such oaths. 3. The persons by whom certified copies of such declarations, cer- tificates, and oaths, and of entries of the same in such register, may be given. 4. The transmission to Her Majesty's secretary of state for the colonies, for the purpose of registration, or safe-keeping, or of being produced as evidence of any declaration taken, certificates granted, or oaths of allegiance administered in the colony under the said acts, or of any copies of such declarations, certificates, or oaths; also of copies of entries of such declarations, certificates, and oaths con- tained in such register as aforesaid. 5. The imposition and application of fees in respect of any such registration, and in respect of the taking of any such declaration, or the grant of any such certificate, or the administration of any such oath, and in respect of certified copies of any such declaration, certi- ficate, or oath. II. The act heretofore passed during the present session and here- inbefore referred to is hereby repealed, and it shall not be necessary to chapter or print the same among the acts ,of this session or otherwise. BARBADOS. Mr. Glare, consul at Barbados, to the Assistant Secretary of State, September M, 1906. American Consulate, Barbados, West Indies, September 22, 1906. Sir: Referring to the Department's circular of July 9, 1906, entitled " Citizenship," I have the honor to say that it will be suffi- cient to refer to the British imperial naturalization act of 1870 (33 and 34 Vict., c. 14) , which governs in this colony. There are no local laws relating to naturalization and the acquisition of citizenship in this island, the act above quoted governing in all cases. I have, etc., Arthur J. Clare, American Consul. CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 369 BERMUDA. [Enclosures in despatch from Mr. Heyl, vice and deputy consul at Hamilton, Bermuda, September 14, 1906.] [1857.— No. 11.] AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAWS IN FORCE IN THESE ISLANDS RELATING TO ALIENS. Whereas it is expedient that the laws now in force in these, Your Majesty's, Bermuda or Somers Islands affecting aliens should be amended, and that Your Majesty should be enabled to grant to aliens the rights and capacities of British subjects in these islands under such regulations and with such restrictions and exceptions as are hereinafter provided, and whereas by an act of the Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland passed in the session holden in the tenth and eleventh years of Your Majesty's reign, it is, among other things, enacted and declared that all laws, statutes, and ordinances which should thereafter be made and enacted by the legislatures of any of Your Majesty's colonies or possessions abroad for imparting to any person or persons the privileges of naturalization to be by such per- son or persons exercised and enjoyed within the limits of any such colonies and possessions, respectively, should within such limits have the force and authority of law, any law, statute, or usage to the con- trary in any wise notwithstanding: I. We therefore, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the legislative council of these, Your Majesty's, Bermuda or Somers Islands, do most humbly beseech Your Majesty that it may be enacted, and be it enacted by Your Majesty's governor, council, and assembly, and it is hereby enacted and ordained by the authority of the same, that every person now born, or hereafter to be born, out of Her Majesty's dominions, of a mother being a natural-born subject of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland shall be capable of taking to him, his heirs, executors, or administrators, any estate in the said islands, real or personal, by devise or purchase or inheritance of succession. II. And be it enacted, that from and after the commencement of this act every alien being the subject of a friendly state shall and may take and hold, by purchase, gift, bequest, representation, or otherwise, every species of personal property in the said islands, except chattels real, as fully and effectually to all intents and pur- poses, and with the same rights, remedies, exemptions, privileges, and capacities as if he were a natural-born subject of the United Kngdom. III. And be it enacted, that every alien who at the time of the commencement of this act shall be residing in, or who shall there- after come to reside in, any part of the said islands, 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 residence or of occu- pation by him or his 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 H. Doc. 326, 59-2 24 370 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. with the same rights, remedies, exemptions, and privileges as if he were a natural-born subject of the United Kingdom. IV. And be it enacted, that upon obtaining the certificate and tak- ing the oath hereinafter prescribed, every alien who at the time of the commencement of this act shall be residing in, or who shall there- after come to reside in, the said islands, with intent to settle in the said islands, shall enjoy all the rights and capacities in the said islands which a natural-born subject of the United Kingdom can enjoy or transmit, except that such alien shall not be capable of becoming a member of the council in the said islands nor a member of the house of assembly in the said islands nor of enjoying such other rights and capacities (if any) as shall be specially excepted in and by the cer- tificate to be granted in manner hereinafter mentioned. V. And be it enacted, that it shall be lawful for any such alien as aforesaid to present to the governor of the said islands a memorial stating the age, profession, trade, or other occupation of the memori- alist and the duration of his residence in the said islands, and all other the grounds on which he seeks to obtain any of the rights and capacities in the said islands of a natural-born British subject, and praying the governor, by and with the advice and consent of the council for the said islands, to grant to the memorialist the certificate hereinafter mentioned. VI. And be it enacted, that every such memorial shall be considered by the said governor in council, and the said governor in council shall inquire into the circumstances of each case and receive all such evi- dence as shall be offered by affidavit or otherwise as the said governor in council may deem necessary or proper for proving or disproving the truth of the allegations contained in such memorial, and that the said governor, if he shall so think fit, by and with the advice and consent of the said council, may issue a certificate under the great seal of the said islands, reciting such of the contents of the memorial as (he said governor, by and with the advice and consent aforesaid, shall consider to be true and material and granting to the memorial- ist (upon his taking the oath hereinafter prescribed) all the rights and capacities in the said islands of a naturai-born British subject, except the capacity of being a member of the council in the said islands or a member of the house of assembly in the said islands, and except the rights and capacities (if any) specially excepted in and by the said certificate. VII. And be it enacted, that such certificate, together with the form of oath hereinafter directed to be thereupon indorsed or thereto annexed shall be registered in the secretary's office in the said islands and shall be enrolled for safe custody, as of record, in Her Majesty's court of chancery in the said islands and may be inspected and copies thereof taken under such regulations as the said court shall direct. ■ VIII. And be it enacted, that within three calendar months from the day of the date of such certificate every memorialist to whom rights and capacities shall be granted by such certificate shall take and subscribe the following oath (that is to say) : I. .4. B.. do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria and will defend her to the utmost of my power against all conspiracies and attempts whatever which may be made against her person, Crown, or dignity, and I will do my utmost endeavour to CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 371 disclose and make known to Her Majesty, her heirs, and successors all treasons and traitorous conspiracies which may be formed against her or them, and I do faithfully promise to maintain, support, and defend to the utmost of my power the succession of the Crown, which succession, by an act intituled "An act for the further limitation of the Crown and better securing the rights and liberties of the subject," stands limited to the Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants, hereby utterly renouncing and abjuring any obedience or allegiance unto any other person claiming or pretending a right to the Crown of the realm of Great Britain and Ireland. So help me God, which oath shall be taken and subscribed by such memorialist and shall be duly administered to him before the governor of the said islands for the time being, who shall cause to be indorsed upon or annexed to the said certificate a memorandum in writing of such memorialist having taken and subscribed such oath accordingly, and such memorandum shall be signed by the governor before whom the said oath shall be administered, and in the event of the demise of the Crown of Great Britain and Ireland it shall be lawful to insert in the form of the oath the name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the corresponding ref- erences thereto, instead of the name of Her most Gracious Majesty and the references thereto, as specified in the foregoing form of oath. IX. And be it enacted, that the several proceedings hereby au- thorised to be taken for obtaining such certificate as aforesaid, shall be regulated in such manner as the governor in council shall from time to time direct. X. And be it enacted, that all persons who shall have been natur- alized in the said islands before the commencement of this act, and who shall have resided in the said islands during five successive years, shall be deemed entitled to and shall enjoy all such rights and capacities of British subjects in the said islands as may be con- ferred on aliens by the provisions of this act. XI. Provided always, and be it enacted, that nothing in this act contained shall prejudice, or be construed to prejudice, any rights or interests in law or in equity, whether vested or contingent, under any will, deed, or settlement executed by any natural-born subject of Great Britain or Ireland before the commencement of this act, or under any descent or representation from or under any such natural- born subject who shall have died before the commencement of this act. XII. And be it enacted, that nothing herein contained shall be construed so as to take away or diminish any right, privilege, or capacity heretofore lawfully possessed by or belonging to aliens re- siding in the said islands so far as relates to the possession or enjoy- ment of any real or personal property in the said islands, but that all such rights shall continue to be enjoyed by such aliens in as full and ample a manner as such rights were enjoyed before the passing of this act. , XIII. And be it enacted, that any woman married or who shall be married to a natural-born subject or person naturalized shall be deemed and taken to be herself naturalized and have all the rights and privileges in the said islands of a natural-born subject. S'7'2 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATBIATION, ETC. Xiy. And be it enacted, that this act shall commence in operation when Her Majesty's royal assent thereto shall be given and made known in the said islands, and not before that time. Passed the legislative council the thirteenth day of March, 1857. John Harvey Darrell, President. Passed the assembly this thirty-first day of March, 1857. By order of the House. Alexr. Ewtng, Speaker. Assented to this 11th day of April, 1857. Freeman Murrat, Governor. [1897.— No, 7.] AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW RELATING TO ALIENS. [21st October, 1897.] Whereas it is expedient to amend the law relating to aliens with the view of affording relief to women who, having been British sub- jects, have already become, or shall hereafter become, aliens by mar- riage, and for other purposes. We therefore, &c, be it enacted, &c. 1. This act may be cited alone as the alien act, 1897, and with the alien act, 1857, as the alien acts, 1857-1897. 2. In the third and subsequent sections of this act the following words and expressions shall, where not inconsistent with the context, have the meanings assigned to them in this section : "Alien " shall mean a person other than a statutory alien as denned in this section, who having been a natural-born British subject has before the commencement of this act become an alien. " Statutory alien " shall mean a woman who, having been a Brit- ish subject, shall have become, either before or after the commence- ment of this act, an alien by reason of her marriage to an alien, or by reason of her husband becoming an alien after her marriage. " Commencement " of this act means the time at which this act comes into operation. " Deed " -includes every description of conveyance and assurance inter vivos which would be sufficient to pass land in these islands from any person legally capable of conveying the same to any per- son legally capable of acquiring the same. 3. Any alien or statutory alien who at the commencement of this act is, or if he or she were a British subject would be, possessed of or entitled to land in these islands, may at any time or times before the expiration of five years from and after the commencement of this act, dispose of such land by deed in the same manner as if he or she were a British subject. 4. Any statutory alien who shall become a statutory alien after the commencement of this act may at any time or times before the expiration of five years from and after the time of her becoming a CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 37$ statutory alien dispose by deed of any land in these islands of or to which she shall be possessed or entitled at the time of her becoming a statutory alien. 5. Any alien or statutory alien who shall, after the commencement of this act, become entitled by devise or inheritance to any land in these islands which such alien or statutory alien would have been legally capable of holding if he or she had remained a British sub- ject, may at any time or times before the expiration of five years from and after the time at which such alien or statutory alien shall have become so entitled by devise or inheritance, as the case may be, dispose of such land by deed in the same manner as if he or she were a British subject. 6. Any deed by which a statutory alien shall dispose of land under this act may be executed by her without the concurrence of her hus- band in the same manner as if she were unmarried, and her receipt alone shall be a good discharge for the purchase money, and it shall not be necessary for such deed to be acknowledged by such statutory alien in the manner in which married women are now required by law to acknowledge certain deeds executed by them for conveying real estate in these islands. 7. No land which an alien or a statutory alien shall dispose of by virtue of and in accordance with this act shall be escheated to the Crown by reason of his or her being an alien, and no land which an alien or statutory alien is hereby empowered to dispose of shall be escheated during the period within which he or she is hereby em- powered to dispose thereof. 8. No alien, whether such alien was or was not a natural-born British subject, shall be entitled to be registered as qualified to be elected or to vote, or shall be admitted to be put in nomination or to vote, at any election of a member or members of the house of assembly or of any municipal corporation, or shall be entitled to any franchise or privilege in respect of any land of his wife, or of his or her receipt of the rents and profits of any land in these islands. 9. No deed by which an alien or a statutory alien shall after the commencement of this act dispose of land under this act shall be valid or effectual for that purpose unless the same shall be executed by such alien or statutory alien in the presence of, and shall be attested by, two or more credible and disinterested witnesses, and such execution shall be proved, and such deed be recorded, in the manner following, that is to say — (1) If executed in these islands by the affidavit or solemn affir- mation or declaration in writing of one of the attesting witnesses of the due execution thereof by such alien or statutory alien, and of the true date of such execution made and signed before the chief justice or an assistant justice of the court of general assize, or before the colonial secretary of these islands, and certified by such judge or secretary under his hand and seal. (2) If executed in the United Kingdom or in the Channel Islands by the affidavit or solemn affirmation or declaration in writing of one of the attesting witnesses of the due execution thereof by such alien or statutory alien, and of the true date and place of such execution, made and signed before a judge of the supreme court of judicature in England or of the high court of justice in Scotland or Ireland, or of a court of record in the Channel Islands, and 374 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. certified by such judge under his hand and seal, or before a com- missioner of the said supreme court for taking oaths and affidavits, and certified by him under his hand and seal, or before the mayor or other chief magistrate of any city or town corporate, and certi- fied by him under his hand and official seal, or the public seal of such city or town corporate. (3). If executed in any British colony or possession out of the ' United Kingdom, other than the Channel Islands, by the affidavit or solemn affirmation or declaration in writing of one of the attest- ing witnesses of the due execution thereof by such alien or statutory alien, and of the true date and place of such execution, made ana signed before the governor, lieutenant-governor, or president, or person administering the government of such colony or possession, and certified by him under his hand, and the great seal of the colony or possession, or under his seal at arms, or before a judge of any court of record having a seal, and certified by him under his hand and the seal of such court, or before the mayor or other chief magis- trate of any city or town in such colony or possession, and certified by him under his hand and official seal, or under the public seal of such eitjr or town corporate. (4) If executed in any place out of Her Majesty's dominions by. the affidavit or solemn affirmation or declaration in writing (in English, or accompanied by a translation into English verified by the minister or other functionary before whom the same shall be made) of one of the attesting witnesses of the due execution thereof by such alien or statutory alien, and of the true date and place of such execution, made and signed before a British minister or am- bassador or secretary of legation resident in the country where such deed has been so executed, and certified by him under his hand, and official or other seal, or before a British consul, vice-consul, or consular agent, within whose district or consular jurisdiction such deed shall have been executed, and certified by him under his hand and seal of office, or before a judge of any court having a seal, and certified by him under his hand and the seal of such court. Every affidavit or solemn affirmation or declaration required by or made under this act,, and every certificate thereof, shall be endorsed on or annexed to the deed to which they relate, under the hand of the judge or other officer or functionary before whom such affidavit or affirmation or declaration shall be made, and under such seal as aforesaid. (5) Every such deed, together with all such proofs and certificates as aforesaid, shall be recorded in the secretary's office in these islands within six calendar months, if executed in these islands, or within twelve calendar months if executed elsewhere, after the execution thereof by such alien or statutory alien ; and for the purposes of this enactment the date of such execution shall be deemed to be the date when the deed is proved by such affidavit or affirmation or declara- tion to have been executed by such alien or statutory alien unless and until the contrary be shewn ; and every such deed shall be deemed to be recorded within the meaning of this enactment on and from the date of the delivery thereof, with the proper proof s, into the secre- tary's office for the purpose of being recorded^ with the fee for re- cording the same at the rate allowed by the fee act, 1819, or such de- posit as shall be estimated by the colonial secretary, or the clerk CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 375 in the secretary's office, as the amount of such fee, and the colonial secretary or the clerk shall, on receipt thereof, endorse on such deed the date of the receipt thereof, and shall deliver to the person de- positing such deed a receipt for the amount of such fee or deposit, and when such deed shall, after having been recorded, be delivered back to the person depositing the same or his authorised agent or lawful representative, a receipt therefor shall be signed by the per- son to whom such deed shall delivered in a book to be provided and kept for the purpose, or in such other manner as the colonial secretary shall require. Out of the fees paid for recording such deeds the colonial secretary shall defray the cost of recording the same, at a rate not exceeding sixpence for every folio of one hundred words, reckoning four figures as one word, and the remainder of such fees shall be paid by the ■colonial secretary into the public treasury. If the fee or deposit paid at the time of the delivery of such deed to be recorded shall be less than the fee legally payable for the recording of such deed, the person to whom the same is delivered shall forth- with pay the difference, and if such fee or deposit exceeds the amount legally payable for such recording the colonial secretary or the clerk shall repay the excess to the person to whom the deed is delivered. 10. The wife of any alien, whether such alien was or was not a natural-born British subject, who shall, after the commencement of this act, obtain a certificate of naturalization under the provisions of the alien act, 1857, shall be entitled only to such rights and capacities of a natural-born British subject in these islands as her husband shall be entitled to by virtue of such certificate. 11. Whenever, before the commencement of this act, any alien or statutory alien shall, in good faith and for valuable consideration, have disposed by deed to any British subject of any land in these islands which such alien or statutory alien could, if a British sub- ject, have lawfully disposed of by such deed, such land shall not be •escheated to the Crown by reason of his or her being an alien or statutory alien, and the title of the person or persons lawfully hold- ing such land under or by virtue of such deed shall be as valid as if such alien or statutory alien had been a British subject at the time of the execution of such deed. 12. The first section of the lien act, 1857, is herebj' repealed. 13. This act shall not come into operation unless and until the governor notifies by proclamation that it is Her Majesty's pleasure not to disallow the same, and subject as aforesaid it shall come into operation on the thirty-first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven, or as soon after that day as such proclama- tion as aforesaid shall be made. [1900.— No. 13.] the alien act, 1900. [1st March, 1900-1 Whereas by the alien act, 1897, it is enacted that no deed by which an alien or statutory alien should after the commencement of that act dispose of land under the provisions of the said act should be 376 CITIZENSHIP OF THE united states, expathiation, etc. valid or effectual for that purpose unless the same should be executed by such alien in the presence of and attested by two or more credible witnesses and such execution should be proved in the manner pre- scribed by the 9th section of the said act: But no provision is made in the said act for the execution of such deeds by the attorney of any alien or statutory alien and it is expedient to authorise and validate the execution of such deeds by the attorneys of such aliens : We therefore, &c, be it enacted, &c. : 1. Any deed or conveyance of any land or real estate in these islands of any alien or statutory alien under the provisions of the alien act, 1897, heretofore executed or hereafter to be executed by any attorney of such alien or statutory alien appointed by any power of attorney executed, proved, and recorded in the manner prescribed or allowed by the ninth section of the said act with respect to con- veyances of lands in these islands of aliens or statutory aliens shall be as valid and effectual as if such deed or conveyance had been signed, sealed, and executed by such alien or statutory alien by his or her own hand, and in the case of any married woman party thereto had been acknowledged to have been freely and voluntarilv executed by her. 2. This act shall be construed together and as one with the alien acts, 1857-1897, and may be cited together with those acts as the alien acts, 1857-1900. [1901.— No. 5.] THE ALIEN ACT, 1901. [15th July, 1901.] Whereas a convention between the United Kingdom and the United States of America relative to the disposal or real and per- sonal property, a copy of which convention is appended to this act, was signed at Washington on the second day of March, 1899, the ratifications of which were exchanged at Washington on the twenty- eighth day qf July, 1900, and whereas it is deemed expedient to make such amendment of the law of these islands as will enable the stipu- lations of the said convention to be made applicable to this colony under the provisions of Article IV of the said convention : Be it enacted by the governor, legislative council, and assembly of the Bermudas or Somers Islands as follows: 1. This act shall be construed together and as one with the alien act, 1897, except that the word " alien " as used in this act shall, where not inconsistent with the context, have its ordinary meaning;,, instead of the special meaning assigned thereto by the second clause of the alien act, 1897. 2. From and after the passing of this act, and during such time as the said convention between the United Kingdom and the United States of America relative to the disposal of real and personal prop- erty shall be applicable to this colony, the privileges granted by the fifth section of the alien act, 1897, to aliens and statutory aliens shall extend and apply to all aliens whatsoever; provided ihat, subject and without prejudice to the provisions of Article I of the said con^ vention, the period within which such privileges may be exercised CITIZENSHIP QF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 377 by any alien, either under the said fifth section or under this section, shall be three years, instead of five years as provided by the said fifth section. 3. Nothing in this act contained shall be construed to prejudice or affect any right which at the time of the passing of this act any alien or statutory alien has acquired or is entitled to under the pro- visions of the fifth section of the alien act, 1897. 4. Where any person shall desire to obtain a prolongation of the term of three years in which, under the provisions of Article I of the said convention, he would be allowed to sell any real property in these islands, he may present a memorial in writing to the governor, stating the circumstances which render it necessary that such term should be reasonably prolonged, and in any such case it shall be law- ful for the governor in council, by warrant under his hand and the great seal of these islands, to prolong the said term for such reason- able period as the governor in council shall deem expedient. BRITISH GUIANA. Couet of Policy. [Ordnance No. 7 « of 1891.] AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE LEGAL CONDITION OF ALIENS AND BRIT- ISH SUBJECTS. 6 . Ordinance enacted by His Excellency Sir Charles Bruce, knight commander of the most distinguished order of Saint Michael and Saint George, lieutenant-governor and commander in chief in and over the colony of British Guiana, vice-admiral and ordinary of the same, &c, &c, &c, with the advice and consent of the honourable the court of policy of the said colony. To all to whom these presents do, may, or shall come, Greeting! Be it known : Be it enacted by the governor of British Guiana, with the advice and consent of the court of policy thereof, as follows: 1. This ordinance may be cited for all purposes as the naturaliza- tion ordinance, 1891. STATUS OF ALIENS. 2. Movable and immovable property of every description may be taken, acquired, held, and disposed of by an alien in the same man- ner in all respects as by a natural-born British subject; and a title to movable and immovable property of every description may be de- rived through, from, or in succession to an alien in the same manner o Numbered 4/91 in Revised Laws. 6 Text as printed in the appendix to the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee. Pari. Pap. (1901), Cd. 723. 378 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. in all respects as through, from, or in succession to a natural-born British subject : Provided that this section shall not — (1) Confer any right on an alien to immovable property situate out of this colony, and shall not qualify an alien for any office or for any legislative franchise, but a person shall not "be deemed to be disqualified for the office of interpreter by reason of his being an alien ; or (2) Entitle an alien to any right or privilege as a British subject, except such rights and privileges in respect of property as are here- by expressly given to him; or (3) Affect any estate or interest in movable or immovable prop- erty to which any person has or may become entitled, either medi- ately or immediately, in possession or expectancy, in pursuance of any disposition made before the coming into force of this ordinance, or- in pursuance of any devolution by law on the death of any person dying before the coming into force of this ordinance ; or (4) Affect the liability of an alien to serve on juries under the pro- visions of any ordinance for the time being in force relating to juries. NATUBALIZATION. 3. (1) An alien who has resided in this colony, or has been in the service of the Crown, for a term in either case of not less than three years, and who intends, when naturalized, either to reside in this colony or to serve under the Crown, may apply to the government secretary for a certificate of naturalization. (2) The applicant shall adduce in support of his application such evidence of his residence or service, and of his intention to reside or serve, as the case may be, as the government secretary may require. The government secretary shall, if satisfied with the evidence adduced, take the case of the applicant into consideration, and may, with or without assigning any reason, give or withhold a certificate, as he may think most conducive to the public good, and no appeal shall lie from his decision. No such certificate shall take effect until the applicant has taken the oath of allegiance, and until such certificate and oath have been recorded in the office of the registrar of British Guiana. Such oath shall be taken within two months after the date of the certificate, and such oath and certificate shall be recorded in a regis- ter book, to be kept for that purpose in the office of the registrar, within three months after the date of the certificate ; and if default is made in complying with either of these requirements, the certificate shall be void and of no effect. A notice of the recording of every such certificate and oath shall forthwith be published by the regis- trar in " The Official Gazette." (3) An alien to whom a certificate of naturalization is granted shall in this colony be entitled to all political and other rights, pow- ers, and privileges, and be subject to all obligations to which a natural-born British subject is entitled or subject in this colony, with this qualification, that he shall not, when within the limits of the for- eign state of which he was a subject previously to obtaining his cer- tificate of naturalization, 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. CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 379 4. The government secretary may, in manner aforesaid, grant a special certificate of naturalization to any person with respect to whose nationality as a British subject any doubt may exist, and such certificate shall contain a statement that it is granted for the purpose of quieting doubts as to the right of such person to be deemed a British subject, and the grant of such certificate shall not be deemed to be any admission that the person to whom it was granted was not previously a British subject. 5. The oath hereinbefore referred to as the oath of allegiance shall be in the form set forth in the promissory oaths ordinance of 1870, and the provisions as to affirming in lieu of swearing contained in the said ordinance shall apply in the same manner as if they were en- acted in this ordinance. 6. Where the father, or the mother, being a widow, has obtained a certificate of naturalization in this colony, every child of such father or mother who during infancy has become resident with such father or mother in this colony shall within this colony be deemed to be a naturalized British subject. SUPPLEMENTAL PKOVISIONS. 7. A certificate of naturalization granted under this ordinance shall be in the form contained in the first schedule to this ordinance. 8. The oath of allegiance may be administered by any stipendiary magistrate, and shall be administered without fee. 9. (1) The fees payable in respect of a certificate of naturalization shall be those set forth in the second schedule to this ordinance. (2) All such fees shall be paid over in such manner as the gov- ernor may from time to time direct to the receiver-general for the public use of the colony. 10. The governor and court of policy may from time to time make, and, when made, alter, amend, or repeal, regulations with respect to all or any of the following matters : (1) The registration of certificates of naturalization; (2) The imposition and application of fees in respect of the making of any declaration or the granting of any certificate author- ised to be made or granted by the naturalization act, 1870, of the Imperial Parliament; and, (3) Generally for the better carrying out of the provisions of this ordinance, and for the due proof in legal proceedings of all acts and things done thereunder. 11. The following provisions shall have effect with respect to evi- dence under this ordinance : (1) Any declaration authorised to be made under the naturaliza- tion act, 1870, of the Imperial Parliament or under this ordinance may be proved in any legal proceeding by production of the original declaration, or of any copy thereof certified to be a true copy by the registrar, or by any person authorised by any regulation as afore- said to. give certified copies of such declaration ; and the production of such declaration or of such copy shall be evidence of the person therein named as declarant having made the same at the date in the said declaration mentioned. 380 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATBIATION, ETC. (2) A certificate of naturalization may be proved in any legal pro- ceeding by the production of the original certificate, or of any copy thereof certified to be a true copy by the registrar, or by any person authorized by any regulation as aforesaid to give certified copies of such certificate; and (3) Entries in any register authorised to be made in pursuance of this ordinance shall be proved by such copies and certified in such manner as may be directed by the registrar, and the copies of such entries shall be evidence of any matter by this ordinance, or by any regulation as aforesaid, authorised to be inserted in the register. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 12. Every person who wilfully or corruptly makes or subscribes any declaration under the naturalization act, 1870, of the imperial parliament, or under this ordinance, knowing the same to be untrue in any material particular, shall be guijty of a misdemeanor. 13. Nothing in this ordinance shall affect the provisions of the aliens ordinance, 1886. 14. Ordinance No. 16 of 1871 entitled "An ordinance to provide for the carrying into effect in this colony of the naturalization acts, 1870," is hereby repealed. 15. This ordinance shall come into force on the publication thereof. And that no ignorance may be pretended of this our ordinance. these presents shall be printed and published in the customary manner. Thus done and enacted at our adjourned quarterly assembly held at the Guiana public buildings, Georgetown, Demerara, this second day of April, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one, and published on the eighth day of April, in the same year. Chas. Bruce. By command of the court : Francis Villiers, Acting Secretary. Schedules. The First Schedule. — Certificate of naturalisation. British Guiana. Know all men by these presents, that by virtue of the provisions of the natural- ization ordinance, 1801, I have this day granted this certificate of naturaliza- tion to , of , a native of . [l. s.l , Government Secretary. Given under my hand and seal this day of , 1 . Note. — The above certificate is void and of no effect unless the following oath Is taken before a stipendiary magistrate within two months of the above date. 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. (Signed) . Sworn before me this day of , 1- ( Signed) Stipendiary Magistrate. Vote.— The above certificate and oath must be recorded in the office of the registrar of British Guiana within three months from the date of the certificate, otherwise the certificate is void and of no effect. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 3.8 1 The Second Schedule. — Table of fees. For what payable. Amount payable.. To whom payable. 85.00 2.50 2.50 The government secretary. The registrar. Cotjbt of Policy. [Ordinance No. 27° of 1891.] an ordinance to amend in certain respects the naturalization ordinance, 1891.* [8th August, 1891.] Whereas it is expedient to amend in certain respects the naturali- zation ordinance, 1891 : Be it therefore enacted by the governor of British Guiana, with the ad nice and consent of the court of policy thereof, as follows: 1. This ordinance may be cited as the naturalization ordinance, 1891, amendment ordinance, 1891. 2. This ordinance shall be construed as one with the naturalization ordinance, 1891, and the two ordinances may be referred to as the naturalization ordinances, 1891. 3. Sections 3 and i of the principal ordinance shall respectively be construed and have effect as if the word " the government secretary " were omitted therefrom and the words " the governor " were substi- tuted instead thereof. 4. The form of a certificate of naturalization contained in the first schedule to the principal ordinance is hereby repealed, and the form of such certificate contained in the schedule to this ordinance shall be substituted instead thereof. 5. Notwithstanding anything in the principal ordinance, any alien holding office at the commencement of the principal ordinance or of this ordinance shall not be deemed to be disqualified for such office on account of his being an alien. 6. Nothing in the principal ordinance or in this ordinance shall affect the employment of any alien in any special and temporary service. 7. Nothing in this ordinance shall affect any naturalization of an alien already effected under the principal ordinance. 8. This ordinance shall come into force on the publication thereof. Schedule. British Guiana. No. — . Whereas CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION. The naturalization ordinances, .1891. an alien, now residing at in the county of -. in said colony, has presented to me a memorial praying for a certificate of naturalization, and alleging that he is a , and that he has resided in this colony for a term of years [or has been in the service of the Crown a Numbered 4/01 in Revised Laws. »Text as printed in the appendix to the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee. Pari. Pap. (1901), Cd. 723. 382 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. for e may be), of , in the province of , I did take and sub- scribe before (a judge, magistrate, or other person, naming him) the oaths (or affirmations) of residence and allegiance required by the laws respecting the naturalization of aliens then in force in the said province. So help me God. A. B. Sworn to before me at , on the day of , 18 . H. I, A. B., of , do swear (or affirm) that I had a settled place of abode In (Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick, as the case may be), on the first day of July, A. D. 1807 (or in Rupert's Laud or the North- west Territories, on the fifteenth day of July, A. D. 1870), (or in British Columbia, on the twentieth day of Julv. A. I_>. 1871) (or in Prince Edward Island, on the first day of July, A. D. 1873), and I resided therein with intent to settle therein; and I have continuously since resided in the Dominion of Canada. So help me God. A. B. Sworn before me at , on the day of , 18 . I hereby certify that A. B., of , has filed with me as (clerk of the peace, , or as the case may be) the oath (or affirmation) of which the following is a copy : ["See infra, 3 Edward VII, ch. 3S.] CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 399' (Copy the oath or affirmation.) This certificate is issued pursuant to the forty-second section of " the natur- alization act," and is to certify to all to whom it may concern that — (Follow Form C.) 44 V., c. 13, sch. [2 edward vii.] Chap. 23. — An act to amend the naturalization act. [Assented to 15th May, 1902.] His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows : 1. For the purposes of the naturalization act, chapter 113 of the Revised Statutes, and of this act, the clerk of the peace of any county in Ontario shall be deemed to be the " clerk " of the general sessions of the peace of that county, and the prothonotary of the supreme court of Nova Scotia for any county shall be deemed to be the " clerk " of that court in relation to matters arising in or dealt with in that county. 2. The clerk of every court which, by or under the naturalization act, is required to grant such certificates shall, on or before the fif- teenth days of January and July in each and every year, make a return to the secretary of state of Canada- of all persons to whom certificates of naturalization or of readmission to British nationality have been granted by such court, or who have taken the oath and been granted the certificates referred to in sections 41 and 42 of the said act for the half years ending, respectively, with the thirty -first day of December and the thirtieth day of June next preceding the date of such returns. 3. Such returns shall set forth with respect to each such person his name, residence, and addition, and his former residence and nationality, the nature of the certificate granted or oath taken, the date when and the place where the same were granted or taken, and any other particulars which the governor in council may require, and shall be accompanied by certified copies of each certificate granted during the half year. 4. The clerk of every such court, and every officer or person who is the legal custodian of the records of any certificates of naturaliza- tion or of readmission to British nationality heretofore granted under any act of the Parliament of Canada, shall, as soon as possible after the passing of this act, and not later than the first day of January, nineteen hundred and three, make a return to the secretary of state of Canada setting forth with respect to each such certificate the name, refidence, and addition, and former residence and nationality, as shown by such records, of the person to whom it was granted, the nature of the certificate, its place and date of issue, and the name of the court by which it was granted. 5. All returns made pursuant to this act and all copies of certifi- cates received with any such returns shall remain of record in the department of the secretary of state, and there shall be prepared 4:00 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATKIATION, ETC. and kept in that department two alphabetical lists of the persons appearing from such returns, and from the records of proceedings under section 14 of the said act, to have been naturalized or read- mitted to British nationality, which lists shall set forth in tabulated form all the particulars required to be given in such returns. (2) One of such lists shall contain the names of persons heretofore and the other those of persons hereafter naturalized or readmitted to British nationality." 6. Any person shall be entitled during the usual office hours of the said department, and upon payment of such fees as may be prescribed by the governor in council, to have a search made of such lists and of the returns and copies of certificates of record under this act, and the secretary of state, upon request, and upon payment of such fees as are so prescribed, shall issue such certificates as to the details shown by such lists or such return with respect to any person whose name appears therein as having been naturalized or readmitted to British nationality, and furnish certified copies of or extracts from any matter of record in the department under this act. 7. Any person who refuses or neglects to make any return required of him by this act within the time limited therefor is guilty of an offence and liable upon summary conviction to a penalty of fifty dollars. [3 Edward VII.] Chap. 38. — An act to amend the acts relating to naturaliza- tion AND ALIENS. [Assented to 13th August, 1903.] His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the senate and house of commons of Canada, enacts as follows: I. Section 11 of the naturalization act, chapter 113 of the Revised Statutes, is hereby repealed and the following substituted therefor: II. Such certificate shall be presented — In Ontario, to the court of general sessions of the peace of the county within the jurisdiction of which the alien resides, or to the court of assize and nisi prius during its sitting in such county ; In Quebec, to the circuit court in and for the district within the jurisdiction of which the alien resides : & In Nora Scotia, to the supreme court, during its sittings In the county within which the alien resides, or to the county court having jurisdiction in such county ; In New Brunswick, to the supreme court during its sittings in the county within which the alien resides, or to the circuit court, as the case may be, in such county, or to the county court having jurisdiction in such county ; In British Columbia, to the supreme court of British Columbia, during its Sittings in the electoral district within the jurisdiction of which the alien resides, or to the court of assize and nisi prius during its sittings in such electoral district, or to the county court of such electoral district ; In Manitoba, to the court of King's bench during its sittings in the judicial district within which the alien resides, or if the alien resides in the eastern judicial district, to a judge of the court of Kiug's bench sitting in court ; or to the court of assize and nisi prius during its sittings in the judicial district [o See infra, 3 Edward VII, ch. 38.] [» See infra, 4 Edward VII, ch. 25.] CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 401 within which the alien resides ; or to the county court of the county court division within which .the alien resides ; " In Prince Edward Island, to the supreme court of judicature during its sit- tings in the county within which the alien resides, or to the court of assize and nisi prius during its sittings in such county, or to the county court of such county ; In the Northwest Territories, to a judge of the supreme court of the North- west Territories sitting in chambers in the judicial district within which the alien resides; In the Yukon Territory, to the territorial court during its sittings in the circuit within the jurisdiction of which the alien resides. ' 2. The following section is hereby added to the naturalization act as section 11a thereof: 11a. When it is intended to present a certificate, under section "11 of this act. on behalf of any alien, notice in writing of such intention, stating the name, residence and occupation or addition of such alien, shall be given to the clerk of the court at least three weeks before the sittings thereof ; and the clerk shall post up in a conspicuous place in his office three weeks before such sit- tings, and keep posted there until such sittings are ended, a list showing the names, residences, and occupations or additions of all aliens as to whom due notice has been received by him of such intention. (2) At any time after the filing of any such notice and previous to the sittings of the court any person objecting to the naturalization of the alien may file in the office of the clerk an opposition in which shall be stated the grounds of his objections. (3) Presentation of such certificates shall be made in open court and on the first day of some general sittings of the court, and thereupon the judge shall cause the particulars of all such certificates to be openly announced in court, the name, residence, and occupation or addition of each applicant for naturali- zation being stated. Where no opposition has been filed to the naturalization of an applicant, and no objection thereto is offered during the sittings, the court on the last day of the sittings shall direct that the certificate of the applicant be filed on record in the court. If such opposition has been filed or objection offered the court shall hear and determine the same in a summary way and shall make such direction or order iii the premises as the justice of the case requires. (4) In this section the expression " clerk " has the same meaning as it has in the act to amend the naturalization act, chapter 23 of the statutes of 1902. (5) In the Northwest Territories the foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply, but in lieu thereof the procedure shall be -as follows: (a) On the presentation of the certificate the judge shall cause a copy thereof to be posted up in a conspicuous place in the court-house in which he holds his chamber for at least two weeks. (6) At any time after the said copy is so posted any one may file with the clerk of the court where the said copy has been posted a written notice of objection to the certificate of naturalization being granted, stating the grounds of such objection. On the Wednesday following the expiration of the two weeks for which the copy is required to be posted the judge shall hold a sittings in chambers, at which, if no objection has been raised, he shall direct the issue of a certificate of naturalization to the applicant; and if objection has been raised, he shall decide such objection in a summary way, and the judge shall have power to adjourn the said hearing from time to time.* 3. Section 12 of the naturalization act is hereby amended by strik- ing out the words " in the Northwest Territories and." 4. Section 18 of the naturalization act is hereby amended by adding thereto after the word " naturalization " in the third line thereof " except that residence in Canada for not less than three months shall be sufficient." 5. Form F in the schedule to the naturalization act is hereby amended by striking out therefrom the words " three (or five as the [o See infra, 4 Edward VII, ch. 25.] » See infra, 4-5 Edward VII, ch. 25. H. Doc. 326, 59-2 26 402 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. case may he) years," in the sixth line, and substituting therefor the words " at least three months." 6. Section 5 of chapter 23 of the statutes of 1902 is hereby amended by adding thereto the following as subsection 3 : " 3. The fees payable for the preparation and transmission of returns made pursuant to this act may, from time to time, be fixed by the governor in council." [4 edward vii.] Chap. 25. — An act to amend the acts relating to naturalization and aliens. [Assented to 10th August, 1904. J Whereas doubts have arisen as to the jurisdiction under the naturalization act, as amended by chapter 38 of the statutes of 1903, of circuit courts in and for territorial divisions of districts or counties in the Province of Quebec, and it is expedient to remove such doubts and to make valid the exercise of such jurisdiction since the last- mentioned act was passed: Therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows: 1. Section 11 of the naturalization act, chapter 113 of the Eevised Statutes, as that section is enacted by section 1 of chapter 38 of the statutes of 1903, is amended by striking out the sixth and seventh lines thereof and substituting the following therefor : " In Quebec, to any circuit court within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of which the alien resides." (2) The said section is further amended by striking out the twentieth to the twenty-sixth lines, both included, and substituting the following therefor : In Manitoba, to the county court having jurisdiction where the alien resides, or if there is no county court having jurisdiction there, then to the county court of the county nearest to his residence or the county court the place of holding which is nearest to his residence. 2. The circuit courts in and for territorial divisions of districts and counties in the Province of Quebec are hereby declared to have had jurisdiction under the naturalization act, as so amended, on and since the thirteenth day of August, 1903, as if the said section 11 had been enacted by chapter 38 of the statutes of 1903 in the form of that section as amended by this act : Provided that this section shall not affect any action or proceeding now pending. [4-5 Edward VII.] Chap. 25. — An act to amend the acts respecting naturalization and aliens. [Assented to 20th July, 1905.J His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows: - — " 1. Subsection 5 of section 11a of the naturalization act, as the said CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 403 section is enacted by section 2 of chapter 38 of the statutes of 1903, is hereby repealed and the following substituted therefor : 5. In the Northwest Territories the foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply, but the procedure shall be as follows : (o) Before its presentation to the judge the certificate shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the supreme court for the judicial district within which the alien resides, unless he resides within a portion of such district assigned to a deputy clerk, in which case it shall be filed in the office of such deputy clerk ; (6) A copy of the certificate shall thereupon be posted up in a conspicuous place in the office of the clerk of the court, or of the deputy clerk, as the case may be, and shall remain so posted up for a period of not less than two weeks ; (c) At any time after such copy is first so posted up any one may file with the clerk of the court, or with the deputy clerk, as the case may be, a written notice of objection to the certificate of naturalization being granted, stating the. grounds of such objection ; ( apply to the department of [foreign] relations in order to com- ply with the requirements of article 19, and be deemed a Mexican. XII. Aliens serving the Mexican Government in an official capac- ity, or accepting from it titles or public offices, provided that within one year after accepting the titles or public offices conferred upon them, or after beginning to serve the Mexican Government in an official capacity, they apply to the department of [foreign] relations in order to comply with the requirements of article 19, and be deemed Mexicans. Art. 2. The following are aliens : I. Those born outside of the national territory who are subjects of foreign governments and who have not been naturalized in Mexico. II. The children of an alien father, or of an alien mother and un- known father, born in the national territory, until they reach the age at which, according to the law of the nationality of the father or of the mother, as the case may be, they become of age. At the expiration of the year following that age they shall be regarded as Mexicans, unless they declare before the civil authorities of the place where they reside that they follow the citizenship of their parents. III. Those absent from the Republic without permission or com- mission from the Government, excepting in order to prosecute their studies, or in the interests of the public, or for the establishment of trade or industry, or in the practice of a profession, who allow ten years to elapse without asking permission to prolong their absence. Such permission shall not exceed five years for each request, and after the first is granted good and valid reasons shall be required in order to obtain another permission. IV. Mexican women who have married aliens, they retaining their alien character even during widowhood. If the marriage is dis- solved, the Mexican woman may recover her citizenship, provided 454 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. that, in addition to fixing her residence in the Republic, she declares before the judge of civil registration of her domicile that she desires to recover her citizenship. A Mexican woman who has not acquired by marriage the nation- ality of her husband under the laws of his country shall retain her own nationality. A change in the nationality of the husband after marriage involves a like change in the nationality of the wife and of the minor children subject to the paternal power, provided they reside in the country in which the husband or father, as the case may be, has been naturalized, saving the exception provided in the preceding paragraph of this section. V. Mexicans who become naturalized in other countries. VI. Mexicans serving foreign governments officially in any politi- cal, administrative judicial, military, or diplomatic capacity, without the permission of Congress. VII. Mexicans accepting foreign decorations, titles, or offices, with- out the previous permission of the Federal Congress, excepting liter- ary, scientific, and humanitarian titles, which may be accepted freely. Art. 3. For the purpose of determining the place of birth in the cases stated in the foregoing articles, national vessels, without any distinction, are hereby declared to be a part of the national territory, and those who are born on board of them shall be regarded as having been born within, the Republic. Art. 4. By virtue of the right of extra territoriality enjoyed en- joyed by diplomatic agents, the children of the ministers and em- ployees of the legations of the Republic shall, likewise, never be deemed to have been born outside of the country, so far as regards the operation of this law. Art. 5. The nationality of artificial persons or entities (corpora- tions) is regulated by the law authorizing their creation; hence, all corporations created under the laws of the Republic shall be Mexican, provided that, in addition, they have their legal domicile in the Republic. Foreign corporations enjoy in Mexico the rights granted them by the laws of the country of their domicile, provided such laws dp not conflict with those of the nation. Chapter II. — Expatriation. Art. 6. The Mexican Republic recognizes the right of expatriation as natural to, and inherent in, every man, and as necessary to the enjoyment of individual liberty; hence, just as it permits its inhabit- ants to exercise that right, allowing them to leave its territory and settle in foreign countries, so likewise, it protects the rights of aliens of all nationalities to come and settle within its jurisdiction. The Republic consequently receives the subjects and citizens of other States, and naturalizes them in accordance with the provisions of this law. Art. 7. Expatriation and the subsequent naturalization obtained in a foreign country do not exempt a criminal from the extradition, prosecution, and punishment to which he is liable under the treaties, international practices, and the laws of the country. Art. 8. Citizens naturalized in Mexico, although they may be abroad, are entitled to the same protection from the Government of CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED sxaTES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 455 the Republic as Mexicans by birth where either their person? or their property are involved. Nevertheless, if they return to their native country, they remain subject to liabilities which they may have incurred under the laws of that country before their naturalization. Art. 9. The Mexican Government will protect Mexican citizens abroad by such means as are authorized by international Jaw. The President, when he sees fit, will make use of those means, provided that they do not constitute acts of hostility ; but if diplomatic inter- vention should not suffice, and if such means should prove inadequate, or if the offenses against Mexican nationality should be so grave as to demand more rigorous measures, the President shall immediately make a report to Congress, transmitting the documents on the subject for constitutional purposes. Aet. 10. The naturalization of an alien is rendered void by his residing for two years in the country of his birth, excepting where he has an official commission from the Mexican Government, or where he has its permission. Chapter III. — Naturalisation. Art. 11. Any alien who complies with the requirements fixed by this law may be naturalized in the Republic. Art. 12. He must make a written communication to the common council of his place of residence at least six months before applying for naturalization, declaring his intention to become a Mexican citi- zen and to renounce his foreign nationality. The common council shall give him a certified copy of such declaration, retaining the original in its archives. Art. 13. At the expiration of the six months, and when the alien has resided two years in the Republic, he may petition the Federal Government to grant him his certificate of naturalization. Tn order to obtain it he must first appear before the district judge in Avhose jurisdiction he is, and undertake to prove the following facts : I. That under the laws of his country he enjoys full civil rights, being of age. II. That he has resided in the Republic at least two years, and has conducted himself properly. III. That he has a business, trade, profession, or income to support him. Art. 14. He shall annex to the petition which he presents to the district judge, asking that those facts be investigated, the certified copy issued by the common council, mentioned in article 12, and shall annex, besides, an express renunciation of all submission, obedience, and fealty to every foreign government, especially that of which the petitioner has been a subject, of all protection other than the laws and authorities of Mexico, and of every right granted to aliens by treaties or international law. Art. 15. The district judge after the petitioner has confirmed his petition, shall order the testimony of witnesses to be taken before the district attorney (promoter fiscal) with regard to the points recited in article 13, and, if he thinks necessary, he may call upon the com- mon council for the report on those points mentioned in article 12. 456 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATBIATION, ETC. The judge shall also admit such other testimony as the petitioner may present with regard to the points mentioned in article 13, and shall require the opinion of the district attorney. Art. 16. The judge, if his decision is favorable to the petitioner, shall forward the original record to the department of [foreign] relations, that it may isue the certificate of naturalization if, in its opinion, there is no legal cause to prevent it. The petitioner shall send a petition to that department through the said judge, requesting the certificate of naturalization and confirming his renunciation of his alien character, and promising adhesion, obedience, and submis- sion to the laws and authorities of the Republic. Art. 17. Aliens serving in the national merchant marine may be naturalized after one year of service on board ship, instead of the two required by article 13. The district judge of any of the ports at which the vessel touches shall be competent to perform the -formalities incident to naturalization, and any of the common councils of those ports may receive the declaration referred to in article 12. Art. 18. Aliens naturalized by virtue of the law, and' those who have the right to elect Mexican citizenship, are not included in the provisions of articles 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 ; consequently the children of a Mexican man or woman who has lost his or her citizenship, referred to in Section VI of article 1 ; foreign women who marry Mexicans mentioned in Section VI of the same article; the children of an alien father or of an alien mother and unknown father, born in the national territory, referred to in Section II of article 2; and Mexican women who are the widows of aliens, referred to in Section IV of article 2 — shall be deemed naturalized, for all legal purposes, upon simply complying with the requirements fixed by these provis- ions, without the necessity of further formalities. Art. 19. Aliens who come under the provisions of Sections X, XI, and XII of article 1 may petition the department of [foreign] rela- tions for their certificate ol naturalization within the period fixed by those sections. They shall annex to their petition a document proving that they have acquired real estate, or that they have had children born to them in Mexico, or that they have accepted some public position, as the case may be. They shall present, moreover, the renunciation and promise required by articles 14 and 16, as a prelimi- nary to naturalization. Art. 20. Absence in a foreign country by permission of the Gov- ernment does not interrupt the residence required by article 13, pro- vided it does not exceed six months during the period of two years. Art. 21. No certificates of naturalization shall be granted to the subjects or citizens of a nation with which the Republic is in a state of war. Art. 22. Nor shall they be given to persons judicially reputed and declared in other countries to be pirates, slave dealers, incendiaries, coiners of false money, or counterfeiters of bank notes or of other papers representing money, nor to murderers, kidnappers, or robbers. Naturalization fraudulently obtained by an alien in violation of law is legally void. Art. 23. Certificates of naturalization shall be issued gratuitously, it not being permissible to collect any fee for them under pretense of costs, registration, stamp, or any other appellation. CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 457 Aet. 24. The act of naturalization being strictly personal, the per- son concerned can be represented by another person only by means of a special and sufficient power of attorney for that act, containing the renunciation and promise which the party interested should make in person, according to articles 14 and 16; but the power of attorney shall in no case supply the want of the alien's actual residence in the Republic. Art. 25. The character of citizen or alien is not transmissible to third persons; consequently, a citizen can not, as such, enjoy the rightsof an alien, nor an alien, as such, the privilege of a citizen. Art. 26. Change of nationality has no retroactive effect. The acquisition and restoration of the rights of Mexican citizenship can take effect only from the day following that on which all the condi- tions and formalities prescribed by this law for obtaining naturali- zation have been complied with. Art. 27. Colonists coming into the country under contracts made by the Government, and whose expenses of transportation and settle- ment are defrayed by the Government, shall be deemed Mexicans. Their engagement to renounce their original nationality and to adopt the Mexican nationality shall appear in their enrollment contract, and upon settling in the colony they shall execute before the compe- tent authorities the renunciation and promise required by articles 13 and 16, which shall be forwarded to the department of [foreign] re- lations, that it may issue a certificate of naturalization in favor of the party interested. Art. 28. Colonists coming into the country on their own account, or under the auspices of private companies or enterprises not subsi- dized by the Government, as well as immigrants of all classes, may be naturalized, according to circumstances, in conformity with the pro- visions of this law. Colonists already settled here are likewise sub- ject to those provisions, so far as they do not conflict with the rights which they have acquired under their contracts. Art. 29. Naturalized aliens shall be Mexican citizens as soon as they possess the qualifications required by article 34 of the constitu- tion and they shall be on an equality with Mexicans in all their rights and obligations; but they shall not be eligible to hold such offices or stations as, under the laws, require native citizenship, unless they were born within the national territory and their naturalization was effected in accordance with Section II, of article 2. Chapter IV. — Rights and obligations of aliens. Art. 30. Aliens enjoy in the Republic the civil rights belonging to Mexicans and the guaranties granted by section 1, of Title I, of the constitution, without prejudice to the Government's right to expel a mischievous alien. Art. 31. Aliens shall not be compelled to reside in the Republic in order to acquire uncultivated national lands, real estate, or vessels, but they shall be subject to the restrictions prescribed by the laws in force, it being understood that every lease of real estate to an alien shal be deemed an alienation if the term of the contract exceeds ten years. 458 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. Art. 32. The federal law alone can modify or abridge the civil rights enjoyed by aliens by virtue of the principle of international reciprocity, and in order that the aliens may thereby be subject in the Republic to the same disqualifications as the laws of their own country impose on Mexicans residing there; hence, the provisions of the civil code and of the code of civil procedure of the [federal] dis- trict on this subject have a federal character, and shall be obligatory throughout the whole Union. Art. 33. Aliens may be domiciled in the Republic for all legal purjsoses without losing their nationality. The acquisition, change, and loss of domicile are governed by the laws of Mexico. Art. 34. When the suspension of individual guaranties is declared under the circumstances under which it is permitted by article 29 of the constitution, aliens as well as Mexicans are subject to the provi- sions of the law decreeing the suspension, without prejudice to the stipulations of treaties. Art. 35. Aliens are bound to contribute to the public expenses in the manner prescribed by the laws, and to obey and respect the insti- tutions, laws, and authorities of the country ; they must submit to the judgments and decisions of the courts, and have no right to have recourse to other measures than those which the laws grant to Mexi- cans. They may appeal to the diplomatic channel only in the case of denial of justice or intentional delay in its administration, after ex- hausting in vain the ordinary means created by the laws and in the manner prescribed by international law. Art. 36. Aliens do not enjoy the political rights of Mexican citi- zens; hence, they can not vote for, nor be elected to, any office filled by election of the people, nor can they be appointed to any other office or position in the Government service; nor can they belong to the army, navy, or national guard ; nor can they assemble to discuss the political affairs of the country, nor exercise the right of petition regarding such matters. This is to be understood as not affecting the provisions of article 1, Section XII, and article 19, of this law. Art. 37. Aliens are exempt from military, service. Domiciled aliens, however, are bound to perform police service when the secu- rity of j^roperty or the maintenance of order in the town in which they are residing is involved. Art. 38. Aliens taking part in the civil dissensions of the country may be expelled from its territory as mischievous aliens, and are subject to the laws of the Republic as to the offenses which they commit against it, without prejudice to the regulation of their rights and obligations during a state of war, by international law and treaties. Art. 39. The laws ordering the registration of aliens are repealed. The ministry of [foreign] relations alone can issue certificates of any given nationality in favor of the aliens requesting them. These cer- tificates constitute a legal presumption of foreign citizenship, but do not exclude proof to the contrary. The final proof of any given nationality is made before the competent courts and by the means prescribed by the laws and treaties. Art. 40. This law does not grant to aliens the rights denied them by international law, treaties, or the legislation in force in the Republic. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATBIATION, ETC. 459 Chapter V. — Temporary provisions. Art. 1. Aliens who have acquired real estate, who have had chil- dren born to them in Mexico, or who have held any public office, being those referred to in sections X, XI, and XII of article 1 of this law, are bound to declare within six months after the promulgation of this law, provided they have not done so previously, to the civil authorities of their place of residence whether they wish to acquire Mexican citizenship or to retain their own. In the former case they must immediately ask for their certificate of naturalization in the form prescribed in article 19 of this law. If they fail to make the declaration in question, they shall be considered Mexicans, except in those cases where there has been an official declaration on this point. Art. 2. Colonists residing in the country, being those referred to in the last sentence of article 28 of this law, shall declare in the manner prescribed by the preceding article under what nationality they wish to be classed, and if it should be the Mexican, they shall also ask for their certificate of naturalization, as prescribed by the preceding article. Art. 3. The Executive, in issuing the necessary regulations for the execution of this law, shall be careful to give the proper directions in order that the local authorities, so far as they are concerned, may duly execute it. "Signed] Juan Jose Baz, Deputy, President. Signed] Pedro Sanchez Castro, Senator, President. "Signed] Roberto Nunez, Deputy, Secretary. Signed] Gildardo Gomez, Senator, Secretary. Wherefore, I order it to be printed, published, circulated, and duly executed. Given in the national palace of Mexico, May 28, 1886. Porfirio Diaz. To Citizen Ignacio Mariscal, Secretary of State and of the Department of Foreign Relations. In communicating it to you for your information and for the necessary purposes, I assure you of my great consideration. Mariscal. Morocco. Mr. Philip, charge d'affaires, to Mr. Root, Secretary of State, August 3, 1906. American Legation, Tangier, August 3, 1906. Sir: ******* There are, strictly speaking, no Moroccan laws relating to citizen- ship of Moorish subjects in Morocco. The fundamental Taws of this non-Christian country are based entirely upon the Islamitic code, no part of which treats of the subject of citizenship. 460 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. There are, however, numerous treaties and conventions between the various Christian countries and the Moorish Empire, by means of which citizenship in this country is defined; but, as I understand, from the above-acknowledged instructions, that it is not the desire of the Department to call for a report upon such lines, I will there- fore confine these remarks to general conditions existing, which may possibly be of some use in connection with the information desired. (1) Citizenship in Morocco may be said to be governed by the laws pertaining to the same in other countries, with the exception that all persons residing in Morocco who. can not prove foreign citizenship or protection are considered ipso jure as Moorish subjects. (2 and 3) Moorish subjects lost their nationality only by becoming naturalized in, or protected by, another country having treaty re- lations with the Moorish Empire. It was established by the Convention of Madrid, concluded July 3, 1880, as follows : Article XV. ■ Any subject of Morocco who lias been naturalized in a foreign country, and who shall return to Morocco, shall, after having remained for a length of time equal to that which shall have been regularly necessary for him to obtain such naturalization, choose between entire submission to the laws of the Empire and the obligation to quit Morocco, unless it shall be proved that his naturalization in a foreign country was obtained with the consent of the Government of Morocco. Foreign naturalization heretofore acquired by subjects of Morocco accord- ing to the rules established by the laws of each country, shall be continued to hetm as regards all its effects without any restriction. The above ruling has never yet been acted upon, and should this at any time be contemplated seriously, a large number of naturalized people, American and others, residing in Morocco, would be affected thereby. (4 and 5) Residence in foreign parts does not affect the nation- ality of Moorish subjects, and the Moorish Government has no means of protecting its subjects permanently residing in other coun- tries, with the exception of a so-called Moorish consul at Gibraltar and a Moorish agent at Cairo, Egypt. I am, etc., Hoffman Philip. Netherlands. [Enclosures in despatch from Mr. Hill, minister to the Netherlands, August 31, 1906.] [Translation.] LAW OF DECEMBER 12, 1892, REGARDING NETHERLANDS CITIZENSHIP AND RESIDENTSHIP. [Official Gazette No. 268.] In the name of Her Majesty Wilhelmina, by God's grace Queen of We, Emma, Queen Dowager, Regent of the Kingdom, make known the Netherlands, Princess of Orange-Nassau, etc. to all whom it may concern, that : Having taken into consideration that it is desirable to establish some general provisions concerning Netherlands nationality in sub- CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATBIATION, ETC. 46 L stitution for the title of the civil code entitled " On Netherlander and foreigners," as well as for the law of July 28, 1850 (Official Ga- zette No. 44), modified by that of May 3, 1851 (Official Gazette No. 46), and that, in accordance with article 6 of the fundamental law, it is necessary to determine by a law who is to be characterized as a resident, while the results of naturalization with regard to the wife and the minor children of the person naturalized also need to be regulated by a law, we have, For these reasons, with the consent of the Council of State and in common accord with the states-general, established and do establish the following : Article 1. The following are Netherlanders by birth : (a) The legitimate child, the legitimated child, or the natural child acknowledged by the father, whose father is of Netherlands nation- ality at the time of birth. (b) The legitimate child of a Netherlander who has died within the period of 300 days before the birth of the child. (c) The natural child acknowledged only by the mother, whose mother is of Netherlands nationality at the time of birth. (d) The natural child born within the Kingdom and who is not acknowledged by either the father or the mother. abticle 2. The following are likewise Netherlanders : (a) The child of a resident who, whether father or mother, ac- cording to the distinctions made in article 1, was born himself or herself of a mother residing in the Kingdom, unless it is ascertained that the child, as a foreigner, belongs to some other country. (b) The child found or abandoned in the Kingdom, as long as his filiation, either as legitimate or legitimated child, or as an acknowl- edged natural child, shall not have been ascertained. Article o. Netherlands citizenship by naturalization is acquired by virtue of the going into force of the law which grants it. For every naturalization the sum of 100 florins is clue the public treasury. The applicant for naturalization must accompany his application with a certificate : 1. That he has attained his majority according to the Netherlands law. 2. That he has lost his Netherlands nationality or that he has during the last five years had his residence or his principal stopping place in the Kingdom or its colonies or possessions in other parts of the world. 3. That he has paid the sum of 100 florins to a receiver of the tees for registration. , In case the applicant belongs to another country, he may be obliged to furnish proof that the laws of such country place no obstacle in the way of naturalization in the Netherlands. 462 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. In case the naturalization is not granted the sum deposited is returned to the applicant. Article 4. Naturalization may also be granted for reasons of state, in which case article 3 is not applicable. The law by which it is granted regulates the conditions attached to such naturalization in each special case. Article 5. The wife follows the status of her husband during marriage. No application for naturalization can be made by a married woman. The naturalization granted to the husband extends ipse jure to his wife. Article 8 or 9 is applicable in case of dissolution of the marriage. Article 0. The legitimate or legitimated child of a father naturalized as a Netherlander and born before the naturalization of the latter, as well as the natural child acknowledged by a father naturalized as a Netherlander and born before the naturalization of the latter, is con- sidered as being naturalized with him and preserves Netherlands nationality until, having become of age according to the Netherlands law, he declares, within one year after the attainment of his majority, to the mayor or local magistrate of his last place of resi- dence in the Kingdom or its colonies or possessions in other parts of the world, or else to the envoy of the Netherlands or a Netherlands consular officer, that he does not intend to retain his naturalization any longer. The same provision is applicable to a legitimate or legitimated child whose mother is naturalized after becoming a widow, as also to a natural child acknowledged by the mother only and born before the latter's naturalization. Article 7. Netherlands nationality is lost — 1. By naturalization in another country or, in the case of a minor, by the acquisition of foreign nationality in consequence of the naturalization of the father and mother in another country, in accordance with the distinctions made in article 1. 2. By the marriage of a Netherlands woman who, by or in conse- quence of her marriage, becomes a foreigner by virtue of article 5. 3. By the voluntary acquisition of a foreign"nationality. 4. By the entrance into the military or civil service of a foreign government without our authorization. 5. By the establishment of residence (except in the service of the nation) outside the Kingdom or its colonies or possessions in other parts of the world during ten consecutive years, unless before the expiration of this period the absentee declares his intention to remain a Netherlander to the mayor or local magistrate of his last place of residence in the Kingdom or its colonies or possessions in other parts CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 463 of the world, or else to the envoy of the Netherlands or a Netherlands consular officer in the country where he resides. From the day on which this declaration has been received the period of ten years begins to elapse anew. In the case of minors the period of ten years begins on the day they have attained their major- ity, in accordance with the Netherlands law. Article S. A woman who has lost her Netherlands nationality by or in conse- quence of her marriage recovers said nationality by the dissolution of the marriage, provided within one year from such dissolution she declares her intention to recover it to the mayor or local magistrate of her place of residence in the Kingdom or its colonies or possesions in other parts of the world, or else to the envoy of the Netherlands or a Netherlands consular officer in the country where she resides. Article '.). A woman who has acquired Netherlands nationality by or in conse- quence of her marriage preserves such nationality after .the dissolu- tion of the marriage unless, within a year after such dissolution, she declares her intention not to preserve it to the mayor or chief local magistrate at her last place of residence in the kingdom or its colo- nies or possessions in other parts of the world or else to the envoy of the Netherlands or a Netherlands consular officer in the country where she resides. Article 10. A legitimate child, legitimated child, or natural child acknowl- edged by a Netherlander, born before the naturalization of its father in another country, and who in consequence of this naturalization has also lost Netherlands nationality, recovers such nationality pro- vided it declares, upon becoming of age according to the Netherlands law and within one year after becoming of age, its intention of recovering such nationality to the mayor or chief local authority of its place of residence in the Kingdom or its colonies or possessions in other parts of the world or else to the envoy of the Netherlands or a Netherlands consular officer in the country where it resides. The same provision is applicable to a legitimate or legitimated child whose mother, having become a widow, is naturalized in another country as well as to a natural child acknowledged only by its mother if the latter has been naturalized in another country. Article 11. Once a year the minister of justice causes to be published in the Official Gazette of the Kingdom the declarations made in accordance with the present law by persons residing abroad. Article 12. All those who do not possess Netherlands nationality according to the present law are foreigners. 464 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. Article 13. Those persons are residents who have their domicile in the King- dom and have had it during the 18 preceding months in the Kingdom or its colonies or possessions in other parts of the world. Article 14. Kesidentship ceases upon the establishment of the domicile outside the Kingdom. Article 15. A minor, according to the Dutch law, whose father or guardian is a resident is considered as such. After having attained his majority he remains a resident if he fixes his residence in the kingdom. Article 10. The provisions relating to residenceship found in special laws are applicable exclusively to the cases contemplated in these laws. TKANSITORY PROVISION. With the exception of those who, according to the law of Septem- ber 2, 1854 (Official Gazette No. 129), are considered in the Dutch Indies as natives or assimilated thereto, all persons who at the time the present law takes effect possess Netherlands nationality are Neth- erlander according to the present law until they lose Netherlands nationality according to the present law. With regard to those who at said time reside outside of the Kingdom or of its colonies or pos- tessions in other parts of the world, the ten-year period provided in article 7, No. 5, shall begin to run at said time. He who, at the time the present law goes into force, was born in the Kingdom of parents not residing there and has not reached the age of 24 years, acquires Netherlands nationality if, within the period of one year after said time, or, if he is still a minor according to the Netherlands law, within the period of one year after having attained his majority, he declares to the mayor of the place of his residence that he intends to continue residing in the Kingdom. With regard to foreigners who, at the time the present law goes into force, have complied with the provision of article 8 of the civil code, assimilation with Netherlanders as regards the application of the civil law and of article 19 of the law of August 13, 1849 (Official Gazette No. 39), modified by the law of April 6, 1875 (Official Ga- zette No. 66), continues as long as they preserve their residence in the Kingdom. FINAL PROVISION. Save the provision of the foregoing transitorv article, articles 5 to and including article 12, forming the second title of the first book of the civil code, and the laws of July 28, 1850 (Official Gazette No. 44), and May 3, 1851 (Official Gazette No. 46), as well as the law of December 21, 1850 (Official Gazette No. 75), are abrogated upon the going into force of the present law. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 465 In the laws in which mention is made of a Netherlander either according to the civil code or to the law for the enforcement of article 7 of the fundamental law, laws of July 28, 1850, (Official Gazette No. 44), and of May 3, 1851 (Official Gazette No. 46), this term is replaced by that of "Netherlander according to the law relating to Netherlands nationality and resiclentship," with the exception of article 22 of the law of April 6, 1875 (Official Gazette No. 66), where the words "according to the civil code" are replaced by "according to the law relating to Netherlands nationality and residentship, as well as those who are born in the colonies or possessions of the Nether- lands in other parts of the world, of parents residing there." This law goes into force on July 1, 1893. We order and command that the present law be inserted in the Official Gazette and that the ministerial departments, authorities, colleges, and functionaries whom it may concern see strictly to its enforcement. Given at The Hague, December 12, 1892. Emma. Smidt, Minister of Justice. Tak Van Poortvliet, Minister of the Interior. Published December 24, 1892. Smidt, Minister of Justice. [Translation.] No. LXII. Circular of Mat 20, 1893, No. 24S5, Concerning the Law of December 12, 1802 (Law Bulletin No. 2G8), Relating to Netherlands Nationality and Residentship. appendix to the " netherlands consular instructions." I have the honor to inclose to you herewith a copy of the text, together with a French translation of the law of December 12, 1S92 (J. O. No. 268), relating to Netherlands nationality and residentship. It appears to me very important to call your special attention to the tenor of this law, both because of the exceptional interest which it has for Netherlanders residing abroad and on account of the pro- visions which it contains, for the carrying out of which the consular officers of the Netherlands are railed upon to lend their services. Al. In the first place, it appears desirable to me to cause all the publicity possible to be given to the provisions of the law relating to the preservation and the loss of Netherlands nationality by Nether- lands subjects residing abroad. To this end I request you to proceed to the publication of a notice to be addressed by you to the Netherlanders residing within your jurisdiction, in order to call their attention to the fact that it is in their interest to make the declaration referred to in article 7, No. 5, H. Doc. 326, 59-2 30 466 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. of the law, as well as, in the proper case, the declarations mentioned in articles 6, 8, 9, and 10. For the publication of this notice it will be preferable to use an official newspaper, but if this is impossible the publication may be made through official channels. Secondly, I take the liberty of recom- mending that you have a copy of this notice conspicuously posted up in the office or your , in order to attract the attention of the parties concerned. 3. At the consulates where the register prescribed in article 22 of the consular regulations (J. O. 1874, No. 74) has been duly estab- lished, the attention of the Netherlands subjects inscribed in this register shall be specially called to the said provision of article 7, No. 5. Every time a new inscription is made in this registry the pro- vision in question should be called to the attention of the Netherlands subject who is being inscribed. 4. Finally, I would request you not to fail to call the attention of interested parties to the said law whenever there is occasion. B. In regard to the enforcement of the law, I would request you to conform to the following : 1. The declarations which are made to Dutch consular officers, in accordance with articles 6, 7 (No. 5), 8, 9, and 10 of the law, may be made at the option of the party concerned: (a) In writing, or (b) orally. In the first case, I request you to send a receipt to the person who has addressed his declaration to you. In the second case, there shall be drawn up a certificate of the declaration, duly dated and signed both by the person making the declaration and by you who receive it, besides which there shall also be delivered a receipt to the said person. In case the person making the declaration can not write, or refuses for some reason to sign the certificate, mention of this circumstance should be made in the certificate. 2. The declarations which you will have received in writing, as well as the certificate drawn up in order to substantiate the declarations which have been made to you orally, shall remain on file in your archives. 3. Upon every receipt of a declaration by you the fact shall be communicated by you without delay to , to which you belong, stating exactly: (1) The Christian name and surname of the person who has made the declaration; (2) the place and date of his birth; (3) his occupation; (4) his place of residence; (5) the article of the law in pursuance to which the declaration has been made; and finally (C) the date on which it has taken place. The transmission of this information is necessary in view of the publications to be made by the minister of justice in accordance with article 11 of the law. As far as the transitory provision of the law is concerned, the period mentioned in the first paragraph of this provision should bo considered as beginning July 1, 1893, since in the present case the provision of article 32 of the consular law (J. O. 1S71, No. 91, modi- fied by the law of April 11, 1886, J. O. No. C3) can not be considered as being applicable. CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 467 Finally, you may consider yourself authorized to send to me a statement regarding the expenditures incurred in the carrying out of the instructions contained in the present circular. Van Tienhoven, Minister of Foreign Affairs. Nicaragua. [Enclosure in despatch from Mr. Caldwell, vice-consul in charsre of legation pro tempore, San Jose 1 , Costa Rica, November 22, 1906. — Translation.] the minister of justice to the minister of foreign relations, september 25, 1900. Ministry of Justice, Managua, September 25, 1906. Mr. Minister : I have had the honor to receive your polite dispatch under date of the 31st ultimo, in which you are pleased to transmit to me the inquiries addressed to j 7 ou by the most excellent minister of the United States, accredited to the Government of this Republic, relating to Nicaraguan citizenship. Complying with your wishes, I proceed to reply to the five ques- tions propounded, in their order; but, first of all, for the sake of greater clearness, permit me to establish a distinction between nation- ality and citizenship, which, in our legislation, have different mean- ings. Nationality is the status peculiar to every person born or natural- ized in Nicaragua. Citizenship is the union of political rights which the constitution confers on Nicaraguans over 18 years of age. Nationality, then, includes all Nicaraguans; while citizenship is peculiar to some of them. First Point. — Laws relating to nationality in Nicaragua. The provisions relative to Nicaragnan nationality are comprised in Title II of the constitution of the Republic, sanctioned March 30, 1905. According to these provisions, the following are Nicaraguans: 1. Those born in Nicaragua of Nicaraguan parents or of foreigners domiciled therein. 2. The children of a Nicaraguan father or mother, born in a foreign country, if they choose Nicaraguan nationality. (These provisions may be modified by treaties, provided always that reciprocity be established.) 3. The natives of other Republics of Central America who reside in Nicaragua, and do not declare before competent authority their wish to the contrary. (All those comprised in the foregoing cases are considered as natives.) 468 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. The following are naturalized : 1. Spanisn- Americans who express their desire to become natural- ized in the country, before the proper authority. 2. Other foreigners who have resided two years in the country and who express the same desire. 3. Those who obtain naturalization papers. (The latter are granted by the Executive by means of a decree.) Second Point. — Causes through which Nicaraguan nationality is lost. The following lose Nicaraguan nationality : 1. Nicaraguan women who marry foreigners. (Article I, Law of Foreigners, par. 5.) 2. Naturalized persons who reside five years in the country of their origin, unless they have obtained permission from the Government of Nicaragua. (Art. 31, Law of Foreigners.) However, a native-born Nicaraguan woman who becomes a widow, if she continues to reside in the territory of the Republic or returns thereto, recovers Nica- raguan nationality. Third Point. — Does the Nicaraguan law authorize the renunciation of nation- ality f The law does not authorize such renunciation, and a Nicaraguan preserves his nationality wherever he may go; therefore, on return- ing to the territory of this Republic, he will be subject to the nation- ality of his origin, although he may have been naturalized in a foreign country. The only exceptions to this general rule are the two cases contemplated in the second question. (Art. 32, Law of Foreigners.) Fotjbth Point. — How far does residence in a foreign country affect the nation- ality of origin? Aside from the case of a Nicaraguan woman who marries a for- eigner and of a naturalized Nicaraguan who returns to .the country of his origin and resides there more than five years without the per- mission of the Government of Nicaragua, residence in a foreign country does not affect Nicaraguan nationality, and he who possesses this nationality does not lose it even though he become naturalized in a foreign country, for once he sets foot again on the soil of the Republic he is considered as having never left it. Fifth Point. — Law relating to naturalisation. In examining the first question it has already been stated who are naturalized Nicaraguans, and it only remains to add that the consti- tution in this matter is of the most liberal possible. A simple decla- ration of his desire to become naturalized, made before the civil authority of the Department where he resides, is sufficient for any Spanish-American to be considered as a Nicaraguan. This same declaration is sufficient for other foreigners if they have already lived two years in the country. Nationality is also acquired by means of naturalization papers granted by the Executive. In regard to citizenship, it may be said to confer upon Nicaraguans the right of suffrage, of being chosen to public offices, and of keeping and bearing arms. (Arts. 14 and 15 of the Constitution.) CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 469 These rights are hot lost; however, they are temporarily sus- pended — 1. By a formal decree of commitment to prison ; 2. By a sentence involving disqualification from the exercise of political rights during the period of the sentence ; 3. By a sentence which imposes a penalty greater than correctional. 4. For accepting employment from other nations (except those of Spanish-America) without permission from Congress, if the person so accepting resides in Nicaragua ; and 5. By reason of mental incapacity. (Art. 16 of the Constitution.) Having thus complied with your wishes, I take pleasure in signing myself, with the highest consideration, Your most respectful and obedient servant, Isidro A. Oviedo. To the Minister of Foreign Relations. [Translation."] CONSTITUTION (1905). Title II. — Nicaraguans. Art. 4. Nicaraguans are either native or naturalized. Art. 5. Native Nicaraguans are : 1. Those born in Nicaragua of Nicaraguan parents or domiciled foreigners. 2. Children of Nicaraguan fathers or mothers born in foreign countries, if they choose the Nicaraguan nationality. This provis- ion may be changed by international conventions, if the principle of reciprocity is observed. 3. Natives of the other Republics of Central America who reside in Nicaragua and do not declare before the competent authority their desire to the contrary. Art. 6. Naturalized Nicaraguans are: 1. Spanish-American citizens who declare before the respective authority their desire to become naturalized in the country. 2. All other aliens who have resided two years in the country and make the same declaration. 3. Those who obtain naturalization papers according to law. 4. Naturalized citizens of the other Central American States who -reside in the country and declare before the competent authority their, desire to be Nicaraguans. Title III. — Foreigners. Art. 7. Foreigners shall enjoy in Nicaragua the same civil rights as Nicaraguans. Art. 8. Nicaragua has not in favor of foreigners any other obliga- tions, nor. does she recognize any other responsibilities, than those established by the constitution and the laws in favor of Nicaraguans. Art. 9. Foreigners are bound, from the day of their arrival in the "Text as printed In American Constitutions by Rodriguez (1905), I, 300. 470 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. territory of the Kepublic, to respect its authorities and observe its laws. Art. 10. They can acquire all kinds of property in the country, but they shall be subject to the same ordinary and extraordinary taxa- tion as Nicaraguans. Art. 11. Foreigners shall not resort to diplomatic interposition, except in cases of denial of justice. Those making undue claims shall lose the right to inhabit the country. Art. 12. Extradition for political offenses is hereby forbidden, even in case that a common offense has been committed in conse- quence thereof. Art. 13. The law shall establish the manner and the cases in which a foreigner can be refused admission into the territory of the nation, or be expelled therefrom. Title IV. — Citizens. Art. 14. Nicaraguan citizens are all Nicaraguans over eighteen years of age. Art. 15. Citizens shall have the following rights: (1) The right to vote, (2) the right to hold public office, and (3) the right to carry arms, all of which is subject to law. Art. 16. The rights of citizenship are suspended: 1. By an order of arrest or a declaration that the party concerned should be subject to criminal proceedings. 2. By a sentence imposing disability for the exercise of political rights during the term of the sentence. 3. By a sentence imposing penalties of graver character than the purely correctional ones. 4. By accepting employment in the service of foreign nations, ex- cepting those of Spanish America, without permission . of the legis- lative power, if the person accepting it resides in Nicaragua. 5. For mental incapacity. Art. 17. The right to vote can not be waived and is compulsory for all citizens. Art. 18. Suffrage shall be direct and secret. Norway. [Enclosures in despatch from Mr. Peirce, minister to Norway, October 5, 1006.] MEMORANDUM ON NORWEGIAN CITIZENSHIP BY THE MINISTRY OF FOR- EIGN AFFAIRS OF NORWAY. [Translation.] Reply to enquiries contained in letter dated August 17, 1906, from the minister of the United States of America to the ministry of foreign affairs. 1. The provisions of the Norwegian statutes concerning the acqui-. sition and the loss of Norwegian citizenship, etc., are to be found in the law on Norwegian citizenship, etc., of April 21, 1888, and the later additional laws of July 27, 1896 (No. 4), and March 29, 1900. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 471 The provisions contained in articles 9-16 of the first-mentioned law- relative to the conditions on which others than Norwegian citizens may acquire real estate, etc., within the country, have subsequently been abrogated and the subject has been treated of in special laws, viz, those of June 9, 1903, April 7, 1906, and June 12, 1906. 2. The provisions concerning the loss of Norwegian citizenship are contained in article 6 of the law of April 21, 1888. This article provides as follows: Norwegian citizenship is lost — (a) By acquiring citizenship in a foreign State; (b) By permanently leaving the country. However, a Norwegian citizen having the rights of a native according to article 92, a, b, or d, of the constitution may retain his citizenship by de- claring his desire to remain a Norwegian citizen before -the local Norwegian consul within a year from the date of his emigration or from the date on which the present law goes into force. This declaration is valid for a period of ten years and may. before the expiration of same period, be renewed so as to have effect for ten years longer. Any person who moves to another country in con- sequence of an appointment in the service of the Norwegian Govern- ment or in the public service of Norway, retains his Norwegian citizenship. In all cases where an emigrant retains this right, it is also retained for his wife as well as for his or her minor children who are at home with their parents or whose education is provided for by them. 3. According to the Norwegian law the consent of the Govern- ment is not necessary in order that a Norwegian citizen may acquire citizenship in a foreign country. However, if such citizenship is acquired, Norwegian citizenship is thereby lost as mentioned above in connection with article 6 a. of the law of April 21, 1888. Nor- wegian citizenship may, however, be recovered either by the person in question establishing a fixed domicile in Norway, provided he has the rights of a native Norwegian according to article 92 a, b. or d, of the constitution (Law of 1888, art. 2 b), or by grant (art. 3 of the law) ; see in this connection convention of May 26, 1869 (June 14, 1871), between Sweden and Norway on one side and the United States of America on the other for the regulation of the nationality of persons emigrating from Sweden and Norway to United States and vice versa. 4. The provisions relative to the effect which a sojourn abroad may have on Norwegian citizenship are to be found in article 6 b, of the law of 1888. See the reply to No. 2 above. 5. The provisions regarding the duty of diplomatic and consular officers to protect Norwegian subjects and their interests abroad are contained in article 6 of the law of June 12, 1906, on the diplomatic and consular service; in article 5 of the Instructions for Legations of August 25, 1908 ; in the consular instructions of July 24, 1906, chap- ter 6 a, " General provisions ; " see also Commentary on the Consular Instructions. 6. There are no laws other than those mentioned above on the sub- ject in question. However, a draft of a new law is in course of preparation, but as it has not yet been considered by the Storthing, it is impossible to say with certainty when and in what form it will be enacted. 472 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. An expose of the provisions of Norwegian legislation concerning citizenship is to be found in The Present Constitution of Norway, volume 1, second edition, by Aschehoug, and in the Constitutional Law of Norway, by Morgenstierne. The subject has moreover been treated in a series of departmental letters published in the second part of the Law Bulletin, especially since 1888, under the heading. of "Treaties, Foreign Eelations, and Consular Service." CONSTITUTION. , [Translation.] Art. 51. The rules regarding the census and registration of voters shall be established by the law. Art. 52. The right to vote is suspended for the following causes : (a) Prosecution in court, at the instance of the public prosecutor, for criminal acts which may involve loss of the right to vote. (b) Judicial interdiction. (c) Bankruptcy, while the property of the bankrupt is in the hands of a receiver. (d) Receiving or having received, during the year preceding the election, assistance from public charity. Art. 53. The right to vote is lost for the following causes : (a) Condemnation for criminal acts in accordance with the pro- visions of the law on the subject. (b) Entering the service of a foreign power without the consent of the Government. (c) Acquisition of the rights of citizenship in a foreign nation. (d) Conviction for purchasing votes, selling one's own vote, or voting at more than one poll. Art. 92. The only persons who may be appointed to Government offices are Norwegian citizens who speak the language of the conutry and who — ■ (a) Were either born in the Kingdom of parents who were at the time subjects of the nation ; (b) Or were born in foreign countries of Norwegian parents who were not subjects of another nation at the time; (c) Or shall reside in future ten years in the Kingdom; (d) Or shall be naturalized by the Storthing. However, other persons than these may be appointed to the posi- tions of professor in the university and in the higher schools, of physician, and of consul in a foreign country. No person shall be appointed to the higher offices unless he is thirty years of age, or to the magistracy or the offices of judge or " foged " before the age of 25 years. No person shall be a member of the council of ministers (cabinet), unless he professes the official religion of the nation. With regard to other Government offices, the necessary rules shall be laid down bv law. J It shall be determined by the law to what extent women who fulfill the conditions imposed on men by the constitution may be appointed to Government offices. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 473 LAW OF APRIL 21, 1888, RELATING TO NORWEGIAN STATE CITIZENSHIP, ETC. [Translation.] Section 1. At birth every person born in wedlock a shall be entitled to the rights of a Norwegian State citizen if the father or mother are Norwegian State citizens, and, in the case of illegitimate children, if the mother be possessed of such rights. Foundlings discovered in' this country are considered as born of Norwegian State citizens, pro- vided before the completion of the eighteenth year of their age their parents have not been traced nor their nationality proved. Sec. 2. The rights of a Norwegian State citizen are acquired by the following voluntary acts : (a) By marriage, viz, of an alien woman with a Norwegian State citizen ; (b) When a person who, according to article 92, a, b, or d, of the constitution, having acquired the rights of a Norwegian-born State citizen, takes up a fixed domicile in Norway. This rule, however, shall not apply to Norwegian-born State citizens who assume a fixed domicile in Norway by virtue of an appointment in the service of a foreign State, or to women having the rights of Norwegian-born State citizens but married to the subject of a foreign State ; (c) By accepting an appointment as a Norwegian official (Embeds- mand) or a permanent appointment from the King or any department of the Government, as a functionary in the service of the Norwegian State. In the case of officials or functionaries appointed to the joint -public service of Sweden and Norway, this rule shall only apply to persons having the rights of Norwegian-born State citizens, and who renounce their allegiance to any foreign State. Sec. 3. The rights of a Norwegian State citizen may also be con- ferred on other inhabitants of the country by permission of the King, or of the authority authorized by him to grant such permission. 6 As a rule such license shall only be granted to those who (a) have had a fixed domicile in this country during three consecutive years; (b) give security that they and their families will. not become chargeable to the poor-law district before having, by domicile acquired the right to become chargeable to the parish in any district in this country, provided such rights do not already belong to them at the time when this law shall come into force; (c) are of age, and (d) are not tem- porarily or forever disqualified from the right of suffrage according to sections 52a and 53a of the constitution. In order to obtain the rights of a Norwegian State citizen in virtue of these rules, an application should be made to the authorities at the place where the applicant resides, stating at which places he has resided in this country, and, if he is a subject of any foreign country, the name of such country, adding a declaration to the effect that, in case of the application being granted, he will renounce all allegiance to such foreign State. If the validity of the last-named declaration depends, according to the laws of the foreign State in question on the consent of its Government, the applicant must prove that such con- sent has been granted. According to the law of Norway, children born out of wedlock are legitimized as soon as the parents legally enter into matrimony. 'By decree of the Crown Prince Regent dated June 11, 188S, such authority has been granted to the department of justice. 474 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. If the application is granted, a certificate as Norwegian State citi- zen will be issued to the applicant in such form as the King may pre- scribe. Such certificate shall only come into force after the person named therein has taken the oath prescribed in section 51 of the con- stitution. The judge by whom the oath has been administered shall endorse the certificate with an attestation of the administration of the oath. • The rights of a Norwegian State citizen may be acquired by any widow or spinster, according to the preceding rules, but without taking the oath prescribed. Sec. 4. When the rights of a Norwegian State citizen have been acquired by a person in virtue of paragraphs 2 and 3, the same rights shall also belong to his wife, and those of his or her children, under age, who reside with their parents or who are educated and brought up at their cost. Sec. 5. Any foreign person domiciled in the Kingdom who, with- out being entered on the register prescribed in section 51 of the con- stitution, shall claim to have acquired the rights of a Norwegian State citizen at the time when the present law comes into force, must, in order to secure such right, apply to the authorities, within one year after the said term, for a certificate as Norwegian State citizen. In the case of a person not having attained majority when the law comes into force, the term of grace allowed for such application shall be extended from the time he attained majority. If the authorities consider the application well founded, and if the applicant fulfills the conditions prescribed in sections 3 a and b, of this law, a certificate as a Norwegian State citizen will be granted ' to him, which is to serve as full proof of his right as such. If the application is refused, the applicant shall not thereby be deprived of any right accorded to him by the laws now in force. Sec. 6. A Norwegian State citizen shall lose his rights as such, (a) when he becomes the subject of a foreign State, and (6) when he leaves the Kingdom forever. Any Norwegian State citizen, how- ever, having the rights of a Norwegian-born State citizen in virtue of section 92 a, 5, or d, of the constitution, 8 may retain his rights as a Norwegian State citizen by making a declaration of his intention to remain as such, before the local Norwegian consul, within one year after his departure, or after the day when the present law comes into force. This declaration shall be valid for the space of ten years, within the expiry of which term it may be renewed for a similar period. Any person who takes up his residence in a foreign country on account of his appointment as a Norwegian official, or in the joint public service of Norway and Sweden, shall retain his rights as a Norwegian State citizen. In all cases in which such right is retained, it applies likewise to the wife and to his or her children, under age, who reside with their parents or are educated' and provided for by them. " In virtue of section 92 of the constitution the rights of a Norwegian-born State citizen belong to those who (a) were born in this Kingdom of parents being at that time subjects of the State, or (b) were born in foreign countries of Norwegian parents not being at that time subjects of another State, or (&) who are naturalized by the Storthing. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 475 Sec. 7. Every person who in virtue of section 92 a, 5, or d of the constitution has the right of a Norwegian-born State citizen is entitled to settle in the Kingdom, and shall retain the domiciliary rights conferred by the poor laws for the towns and for the rural districts of June 6, 1863, sections 16 and 17, respectively. Norwegian State-citizens are entitled to reside in Norway, except when they may be delivered over to the Swedish authorities in com- pliance with the law of September 11, 1818. Section 1 of the law of June 17, 1886, containing amendments of, and additions to, the poor laws, is hereby repealed as regards Norwegian State-citizens, but section 2 of the same law shall remain in force as regards emigrated Norwegian State-citizens who are not possessed of the rights of Norwegian-bofn State-citizens. Every Norwegian State-citizen is a Norwegian subject. Immigrat- ing aliens shall, even after becoming Norwegian State-citizens, enjoy the immunity from military service conditionally accorded to them by the law concerning military service of May 12, 1866, section 12. Sec. 8. Those inhabitants of the country not possessing the rights of Norwegian State-citizens are not Norwegian subjects. With regard to their legal status, the rules contained in the laws, with the exception of the present law and the constitution, relating to Nor- wegian subjects, natives, Norwegians, inhabitants of the Kingdom, and Norwegian citizens, shall continue in force, foreigners being, however, subject to expulsion from the Kingdom in the same cases as hitherto. The law of August 4, 1845, relating to the qualifications required for election to certain municipal or parochial functions, and of June 17, 1886, referred to in the preceding paragraph, shall remain applicable to such aliens. Sec. 9. In future, real property, except by special permission of the King, or the authority authorized by him, a may only be legally acquired in the realm by Norwegian or Swedish State-citizens, corpo- rations, institutions, or limited liability companies, when their boards have their seat in Norway or Sweden, and consist exclusively of Norwegian or Swedish State-citizens. The same rule shall apply to leases of landed property, and the rights of usufruct, use, or other rights conferred thereby with regard to such property. The King may grant exemptions from enactments of this paragraph with respect to leases or other rights acquired, for a period not exceeding ten years. The right of obtaining a license to work a mine remains free to all, according to the mining law of July 14, 1842, as well as to the allot- ment of ground to such claim, according to section 18 of the same law, and the laws of February 17, 1866, respecting the rights of the holders of claims, and the term of grace allowed for the commence- ment and continuation of mining operations. Those communities of dissenters recognized by the law of July 16, 1845, shall, notwith- standing the provisions of this paragraph, have the right to acquire and possess lands for establishing churches, schools, parsonages, and cemeteries. Sec. 10. Every Swedish State-citizen acquiring in future any real property in Norway, or such rights as aforesaid as are equivalent »By decree of the Crown Prince Regent dated June 11, 1888, such authority has been granted to the department of the interior. 476 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. thereto, as mentioned in paragraph 9, must, if not residing in Nor- way, have a representative at the place where the property is situ- ated, who, in his absence, holding his power of attorney, shall be authorized to appear for him before courts of law and the authori- ties in all matters relating to the property or to the stated rights which may have been obtained by him. The same rule shall apply to corporations, institutions, or limited liability companies, the boards of which have their seat in Sweden, and acquire such property or rights as aforesaid. The name and residence of such authorized representative shall be officially published (registered). In case of noncompliance with the preceding rules, the judge of the inferior court in whose district the estate is situated may, at the instance of any person concerned, appoint such a representative to act as attorney, and such appointment shall be binding upon the owner or occupier. The preceding rules of this paragraph shall also be applied when, in virtue of a permission granted according to section 9, an alien has acquired in the Kingdom real property, or the rights aforementioned. Sec. 11. Contracts concluded contrary to section 9 can not be enforced unless the permission as is required by the said paragraph be subsequently granted. Sec. 12. If any document is required to be officially published (reg- istered) concerning any acquisition for which aliens, according to section 9, require a license, and such can not be produced, the reg- istrar shall, provided he finds it questionable as to what extent the acquisition is at variance with the terms of the stated paragraph, make an annotation thereof, which shall be forwarded by him to the superior authorities. Sec. 13. If made in regard to them. As regards the reacquisition of Swiss citizenship the Federal law, according to article 10, prescribes as follows: The Federal Council can, after having taken the advice of the Canton of origin, reaccept without charge in their former communal and cantonal citizen- ship the following persons if they have a domicile in Switzerland : (a) The widow, the wife under legal separation, or the divorced wife of a Swiss citizen who has renounced his Swiss citizenship, as well as those of his children who are still minors at the time of his renunciation, if the request is made by the widow or the divorced wife, or the wife legally separated, within ten years from the divorce or the legal separation, and by the children within ten years from the time at which they became 20 years, old ; (6) The widow, the wife legally separated, or the divorced wife, who have lost their Swiss citizenship through marriage, if they make their request within ten years from the divorce or legal separation; (c) Persons whom special circumstances have obliged to renounce Swiss citizenship, if they make their request wthin ten years after their return to Switzerland. (This applies to professors, teachers, and officials in a foreign government's employ.) In the case of letters a, 6, and c above mentioned, the reacceptance of the mother or the parents of Swiss citizenship entails with it the naturalization of the children who, according to the laws of their country of origin, are still minors or have a guardian, if the mother exercises over them legal control or if the guardian has given its consent, and if no formal objection has been made in their case. All other Swiss citizens not mentioned above who have renounced their Swiss citizenship, to reacquire the same must go through the same formalities as a foreigner. (A copy of the Federal law of June 25, 1903, on naturalization and renunciation of Swiss citizenship, together with the conditions and formali- ties to be observed, herewith enclosed.) 4. In consequence of article 44 of the federal constitution above referred to, a Swiss always remains a Swiss as long as he has not according to Swiss laws voluntarily renounced his communal, cantonal, and general Swiss citizenship, and therefore residence in foreign parts in no way affects his citizeship of origin. 5. Swiss citizens permanently residing in other countries always remain under the protection of the Swiss Government. It must be remembered that all Swiss citizens from the ages of 20 to 45 are subject to military duty or taxation even though residing abroad. Whenever a Swiss returns to his country of origin he is immediately called upon to pay all his military taxes due during his residence abroad. This also applies to those naturalized in a foreign country who have failed to renounce their Swiss citizenship accord- ing to Swiss law. Furthermore, in consequence of article 44 of the federal constitu- tion even a native-born American, son of a Swiss who was a natural- ized citizen of the United States at the time of his son's birth, is, if he comes to Switzerland, under the laws of this country regarded as a Swiss if his father has failed to renounce Swiss citizenship in the manner above prescribed, and therefore liable to military taxation. I have, etc., Bkuttjs J. Clay. American Minister. 518 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. [Enclosure 1. — Translation.] FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OF THE SWISS CONFEDERATION. Article 43. Every citizen of a Canton is a Swiss citizen. He may, as such, take part, at the place of his domicile, in all elec- tions and votings on federal matters, after having duly qualified as a voter. No person may exercise political rights in more than one Canton. A Swiss of permanent residence enjoys, at the place of his domicile, all the rights of citizens of the Canton, and, with the latter, all the rights of the bourgeois of the commune. Participation in the prop- erty of the bourgeoisies and of the corporations, and the right to vote in matters pertaining solely to the bourgeoisies are excepted from these rights, unless the legislation of the Canton decides otherwise. In cantonal and communal matters he becomes a voter after three months' residence. The cantonal laws on residence and on the electoral rights pos- sessed in communal matters by citizens of permanent residence are subject to the sanction of the federal council. Article 44. No Canton may expel one of its citizens from its terri- tory or deprive him of the right of birth (origin) or citizenship. Federal legislation shall determine the condtions under which for- eigners may be naturalized, as well as those under which a Swiss may renounce his nationality in order to become naturalized in a foreign country. [Enclosure 2" — Translation.] FEDERAL LAW ON THE NATURALIZATION OF FOREIGNERS AND THE RENUN- CIATION OF SWISS NATIONALITY. (June 25, 1903.) The Federal Assembly of the Swiss Confederation, in execution of article 44 of the federal constitution, and in view of the message of the Federal Council of March 20, 1901, decrees: I. — On naturalization. Article 1. A foreigner desirous of acquiring Swiss citizenship must request of the Federal Council the authorization to have him- self accepted as a citizen of a Conton or commune. When it is a question of granting to a foreigner naturalization by favor the cantonal government must also request the authorization from the Federal Council. Art. 2. The authorization shall not be granted unless the foreigner has had his usual domicile in Switzerland during the two years im- mediately preceding his application. The Federal Council also examines into the relations of the for- eigner with his native country, as well as all other circumstances concerning himself and his family. It may refuse to grant the CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 519 authorization if it is found from the investigation that the natural- ization of the applicant would redound to the detriment of the Confederation. Art. 3. Naturalization includes the wife and children of the for- eigner naturalized, provided they are subject to his marital or pater- nal power according to the law of his native country and unless the Federal Council makes a formal exception in regard to them. ■ Art. 4. Every decision granting communal and cantonal citizen- ship to a foreigner is null and void unless preceded by the authoriza- tion of the Federal Council. On the other hand, Swiss nationality is only acquired when the authorization of the Federal Council is followed by the communal and cantonal naturalization in conformity with the provisions of the cantonal laws. The authorization of the Federal Council lapses if the person to whom it is granted does not acquire communal or cantonal citizen- ship within three years from the date on which it was granted. Art. 5. The Cantons are entitled to enact legislation to the effect that children born within their territory of resident foreigners are by right citizens of the canton and therefore Swiss citizens without the necessity of authorization by the Federal Council in the follow- ing cases : (a) When the mother is of Swiss origin; (b) If at the time of birth of the child its parents have been domi- ciled in the Canton for at least five years uninterruptedly. The Cantons should reserve the right of option. Art. 6. Persons who, besides Swiss nationality, possess also that of a foreign state can not demand of such state, as long as they reside there, the rights and protection due them as Swiss citizens. * II. — On the renunciation of Swiss nationality. Art. 7. A Swiss citizen may renounce his nationality. For this purpose he must — (a) No longer have a domicile in Switzerland;. (b) Enjoy his civil capacity according to the laws of the country in which he resides. (c) Have acquired or assured a foreign nationality for himself, his wife, and his children within the meaning of article 9, last paragraph. Art. 8. The declaration of renunciation of Swiss nationality must be presented in writing, together with the corroborative docu- ments, to the Cantonal government. The latter gives notice thereof to the native commune, for it as well as for all other parties con- cerned, and fixes a maximum period of four weeks for offering objections. If the right of renouncing Swiss nationality is contested, the Federal court decides in accordance with the procedure established for controversies of public law by the Federal law on the Federal judicial organization of March 22, 1893. Art. 9. If the conditions mentioned in article 7 are fulfilled and no opposition has been made, or if the opposition has been overcome, the authority competent according to the Cantonal law declares the 520 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. applicant liberated from the bonds of Cantonal and communal citi- zenship. The liberation, which involves the loss of Swiss nationality, dates from the delivery to the applicant of the document of liberation. The liberation includes ;the wife and children when they are sub- ject to the marital or paternal authority of the person liberated and provided no formal exception has been made in regard to them. III. — On the restoration to Swiss nationality. Art. 10. The Federal Council may, after having consulted the native Canton, declare the free restoration of the following persons to their old rights of citizenship if they are domiciled in Switzerland: (a) The widow, the wife separated from bed and board, and the divorced wife who have lost their Swiss nationality by mariage, as well as those of his children who were still minors at the time of renunciation, provided a request to this effect is made by the widow, the divorced wife, or the wife separated from bed and board within a period of ten years dating from the dissolution of the marriage or from the separation from bed and board, and by the children within ten years from the time thejr attained the age of twenty years. (b) The widow, the wife separated from bed and board, and the divorced wife who have lost their Swiss nationality by marriage, provided they make application within ten years from the dissolu- tion of the marriage or from the separation from bed and board. (c) Persons whom special circumstances have forced to. renounce Swiss nationality, provided they make application within ten years after their return to Switzerland. In the cases under a, b, and c above, the return of the mother or the parents to Swiss nationality involves the naturalization of the children who, according to the law of their native country, are still minors or are provided with a guardian, provided the mother exer- cises paternal authority over them or the guardian has given his con- sent, and provided no formal exception has been made with regard to them. IV. — Chancellery fees. Art. 11. The Federal chancellery shall receive a fee of 20 francs for issuing the authorization to acquire naturalization in a Swiss Canton or commune. The following are excused from the payment of this fee : (a) Persons reinstated in their Swiss citizenship. (b) Foreigners who were born in Switzerland and have resided there at least ten years. (c) Cantonal governments which request the authorization to grant to a foreigner naturalization by favor (art. 1, par. 2). V. — Annulment. Art. 12. The Federal Council may, within the period of five years from the cantonal naturalization, revoke the authorization granted to a foreigner to acquire communal and cantonal citizenship, pro- vided it is proven that the conditions laid down by the law for the granting of this authorization have not been fulfilled. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 521 Such revocation also annuls the communal and cantonal citizenship granted on the basis of the federal authorization revoked. The Federal Council may also, at any time, annul the naturaliza- tion granted by virtue of article 5, provided it was obtained in a fraudulent manner. The same right is reserved to the cantons. VI. — Final provisions. Art. 13. A period of two years is granted to the persons contem- plated in article 10, letter b, in order to file their application for rein- statement, provided the period of ten years fixed in said article had already expired at the time the present law went into force. Art. 14. The cantonal laws promulgated by virtue of article 5 shall, before going into effect, receive the approval of the Federal Council. Art. 15. The federal law on naturalization of July 3, 1876, as well as all provisions of federal and cantonal laws which are contrary to the present law, are hereby abrogated. Art. 16. The Federal Council is charged, in conformity with the provisions of the federal law of June 17, 1874, concerning popular votes on federal laws and decisions, with the publication of the pres- ent law and with fixing the time when it is to take effect. Thus decreed by the National Council. Bern, June 25, 1903. Cd. Zschokke, President. Ringier, Secretary. Thus decreed by the Council of the States. Bern, June 25, 1903. Hoffmann, President. Schatzmann, Secretary. The Federal Council resolves : The foregoing federal law, published July 1, 1903, shall be inserted in the Collection of Laws of the Swiss Confederation and shall take effect January 1, 1904. Bern, October 2, 1903. In the name of the Swiss Federal Council : Deuciieb, President of the Confederation. Schatzmann, First Vice-Chancellor. [Enclosure 2 » — Translation.] CONDITIONS AND FORMALITIES TO BE FULFILLED IN ORDER TO OBTAIN FROM THE FEDERAL COUNCIL THE AUTHORIZATION PROVIDED FOR BY THE LAW OF JUNE 25, 1903, ON THE NATURALIZATION OF. FOREIGNERS AND THE RENUNCIATION OF SWISS NATIONALITY. [Ordinance of the Federal Council of December 30, 1903.] I. — Naturalization. Sec. 1. — Form of application. — A foreigner desirous of becoming a naturalized Swiss should apply to the Federal Council for the 522 CITIZENSHIP or THE united states, expatriation, etc. authorization to have himself accepted as a citizen of a Canton or a commune (Federal law of June 25, 1903, article 1). The application, made on a double sheet of unstamped paper, must — ■ (a) State the Christian and family names of the applicant, his occupation, the date and place of his birth, his nationality, the names of his parents, his domicile, his exact address, and the place and duration of his residence in Switzerland. (b) State whether he is a bachelor, married, a widower, or divorced or separated from bed and board, and whether he has any children and how many. If the applicant is married, the application should state the Christian and family names and the date and place of birth of the wife, as well as her place of origin. If he has children, the application must state their Christian names, as well as the date and place of their birth. Finally, the application shall state whether the wife and children live in the same household with the applicant. Sec. 2. — Documents with which the application should be accom- panied. — The application should be accompanied by a certificate of good conduct and the documents by which the several points indi- cated in article 1 may be verified, namely : ment issued by a competent authority and proving the nationality of the applicant. (b) The birth certificate of the applicant and, in case he is married, the birth certificate of his wife, his marriage certificate, the death certificate of his wife (if she be dead), and the birth certificates of his children, if he have any. The documents enumerated under b may be replaced by a single document ("family certificate"), issued by a competent authority and containing all the data necessary, duly certified. (c) If the applicant is divorced or separated from bed and board, a certified copy of the judgment granting the divorce or separation. Sec. 3. — Minors. — Minors should present, in support of their appli- cation, a certified authorization of their guardian or the person exercising paternal authority over them. If this document is given by any person other than the father, it should be accompanied by a document (appointment, etc.) showing that the person signing the authorization is legally qualified to give it. Emancipated minors must produce a certified copy of their letter of emancipation. The age of majority is determined by the laws of the native country of the candidate for naturalization. Majority is attained — At the completed age of 16 years in Turkey (the Mohammedans) ; At the completed age of 21 years in France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Russia, United States, Roumania, Portugal, 'Sweden, Belgium, Luxembourg, Greece, Brazil, Turkey (the non-Mohamme- dans) , etc. ; At the completed age of 22 years in the Argentine Republic ; At the completed age of 23 years in the Netherlands ; CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 523 At the completed age of 24 years in Austria-Hungary, Norway, and Denmark; At the completed age of 25 years in Spain, Bolivia, Chile, and the Republic of San Salvador. Sec. 4. The applicant must prove that he has had his usual domicile in Switzerland for at least two years (article 2, par. 1 of the law). He shall exhibit for this purpose one or more certificates issued by the competent cantonal or communal authorities and showing that he has resided in Switzerland during the two years immediately preced- ing his application. If the applicant has gone abroad during these last two years, the certificate of domicile shall state the reasons and the durations of his absences. Sec. 5. — Relations of the applicant with his native country. — According to article 2, 2d paragraph, of the federal law of June 25, 1903, the Federal Council may refuse to grant the authorization neces- sary in order to acquire Swiss nationality if the relations of the appli- cant with his native country are such that his naturalization would prove a detriment to the Confederation. The fact of the applicant's being still liable to active military serv- ice does not of itself prevent his being granted the authorization to become a natralized Swiss. The Federal Council, however, reserves the right to investigate each particular case and to grant or refuse the authorization according to circumstances. In general, it may be observed that the citizens or subjects of Ger- many, Austria-Hungary, France, Italy, Russia, etc., who acquire Swiss citizenship before performing their military obligations in their native country, and without obtaining a certificate of release or a declaration from the competent authority entitling them to acquire foreign nationality, render themselves liable, in case they return to their former country, to be arrested, punished, and compelled to per- form their military service. The parties concerned shall have to bear these consequences them- selves, as the Federal Council can not intercede in their behalf. An Italian subject who acquires a foreign nationality forfeits, ipso jure, his Italian nationality; however, he is not thereby exempted from military service in Italy and does not escape the penalties imposed on those who bear arms against their country (articles 11 and 12 of the Italian civil code ; see also the declaration following the convention on settlement and consular matters. with Italy of € Tulv 28, 1868 (Official collection, Vol. IX, p. 636). The wife and children of those who have lost their Italian nation- ality by foreign naturalization become foreigners unless they have maintained their residence in Italy. However, this loss of Italian citizenship does not exempt the children from military service in Italy, and they are liable, on returning thither, to arrest and enroll- ment in the Italian army. The federal authorities can not protect them against such a contingency. The inhabitants of Alsace-Lorraine who acquire citizenship in. another country can not settle again in Alsace-Lorraine, and, if they return there, they are liable to be expelled. The Federal Coun- cil could not intercede in their behalf. 524 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. A Frenchman still subject to the obligations of military service in the active army or the reserve does not lose his French nationality by becoming naturalized in a foreign country unless he has been naturalized by authorization of the French Government. A Frenchman who is a minor and becomes naturalized as a Swiss with the consent of his father or his guardian preserves his French nationality according to the French law, which does not admit that a minor can dispose of his nationality. It therefore follows that he can be compelled to perform military service in France, notwith- standing that he has become a Swiss according to the Swiss law. On the contrary, the status of the minor children of Frenchmen who become naturalized as Swiss is regulated by the Franco- Swiss convention of July 23, 1879 (Official Collection, new series, Vol. V, page 163), article 1 of which reads thus: " Persons whose parents, being of French origin, become natu 1 ralized as Swiss, and who are minors at the time of such naturaliza- tion, shall have the right to choose, during their twenty-second year, between Swiss and French nationality. They shall be considered ' French until they have decided in favor of Swiss nationality." The declaration of choice in favor of Swiss nationality shall be made by the interested party before the Swiss or French municipal authority of his place of residence. If the interested party does not reside either on Swiss or French territory, he may make this declaration before the diplomatic or consular officers of either nation. II. — Restoration to Swiss nationality. Sec. 6. Persons applying for reinstatement in their former rights of citizenship by virtue of art. 10 of the law of June 25, 1903, must produce the documents mentioned in §§ 1, 2, and 3 hereinabove, together with a certificate from the competent authority of their place of residence, showing that their actual domicile is in Switzer- land." 1 They must likewise furnish evidence of their own or their parents' citizenship in Switzerland before they became foreigners. Sec. 7. — Translation of documents drawn in foreign languages. — Every document in any language other than German, French, or Italian must be accompanied by an official translation into one of these national languages. Sec. 8 (article 11 of the law).— Fees.— A fee of twenty francs shall be charged for the issue of the authorization to acquire citi- zenship in a Swiss canton or commune. The following are exempted from the payment of this fee : (a) Persons being restored to Swiss citizenship ; (b) Foreigners who were born in Switzerland and have resided there at least ten years ; (c) Cantonal governments requesting authorization to grant to a foreigner citizenship by favor (art. 1, par. 2," of the law). = These persons must simply prove that their actual domicile is in Switzer- land. It is not necessary for this domicile to be situated in their native Can- ton or for it to be of two years' duration. citizenship of the united states, expatriation, etc. 525 Turkey. LEncIosures in despatch from Mr. Leishman, ambassador to Turkey, November 10, 1906.] TRANSLATION OF THE OTTOMAN LAW OF NATIONALITY OF 1869. Article I. Persons born at a time when their parents or only father are of Ottoman nationality are considered Ottoman subjects. Article II. Any person born in the imperial dominions (Ottoman Empire) at a time when his (or her) parents are of foreign nation- ality can,- by right, within three years, beginning with the date of his (or her) majority, claim Ottoman nationality. Article III. A foreigner of age who has lived in the Ottoman Empire consecutively for five years can obtain Ottoman nationality by submitting personally, or through intermediary, a petition to the department of foreign affairs. Article IV. The Imperial Ottoman Government extraordinarily receives into its allegiance foreigners as well whom it considers to be worthy of an exceptional favor, even should they not have fulfilled the conditions prescribed in the preceding article. Article V. Persons who, being authorized, enter from Ottoman into a foreign nationality are, from the date when they changed their nationality, considered as foreign subjects and treated as such. But if he (or she) should enter into a foreign nationality without being authorized by the Imperial Ottoman Government his (or her) new nationality shall be considered as null and void, and he (or she) shall be considered as an Ottoman subject as before, and in every matter he (or she) shall be treated exactly as Ottoman subjects are treated. In any case, the abandonment by an Ottoman subject of his (or her) nationality depends on an instrument to be granted in virtue of an imperial irade. Article VI. If the Ottoman Empire should so wish it can reject from its subjection the person who, without authorization from the Imperial Ottoman Government, changes his nationality in a foreign country, or enters into the military service of a foreign government. The return into the imperial dominions (the Ottoman Empire) of persons of this category whose nationality has been rejected is for- bidden. Article VII. The woman who, while an Ottoman subject, marries a foreigner, may return to her original nationality if, within three years following the date of her husband's death, she petitions for it. The provision of this article applies to the person ; the matter of own- ership of mulk and arazi property is subject to the general laws and regulations. Article VIII. The children, even if they should be minors, of per- sons who. have changed their Ottoman nationality or have been deprived of it, do not follow the nationality of their fathers, but remain Ottoman subjects. And the children of the foreigner who has entered into the Ottoman nationality, even if they should be minors, do not follow the nationality of their fathers, but are con- sidered as foreigners. Article IX. Every person inhabiting the Imperial Dominions is considered as an Ottoman subject and treated as an Ottoman subject. If he (or she) is a foreign subject it is necessary for him (or her) to prove it in a regular manner. 526 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. [Memorandum and comments upon the translation of the Ottoman law of nationality of 1869, by Mr. Schmavonian, legal adviser of the American embassy at Constantinople.] Although it is not within the scope of the present memorandum to study every aspect of the conceptions of nationality underlying the Moslem Sheri law, its influence can none the less be traced in the drafting of the present Ottoman law of nationality. The extraterritorial privileges known under the general name of capitulations or treaty rights and enjoyed by the great majority of non-Ottoman residents of the Ottoman Empire are well known. At a time when the non-Moslem subjects of the Empire were not on an equal footing with their Mohammedan fellow-subjects, it was natural for the former to look with envy at the superior legal position enjoyed by foreign subjects in Turkey. In a country where theology and law as well as religion and nationality were often confused, a Chris- tian Ottoman subject of the Sublime Porte would endeavor to find the means to enjoy the same rights and immunities as were enjoyed by the Christian subject of some western power; for in his own mind the question of " subjection " seemed identical with that of religion. The stronger western powers " protected " not only their own sub- jects in Turkey, but those as well of other and smaller countries. Gradually the representatives of foreign countries protected in Tur- key certain Ottoman subjects as well. This " protection," which culminated in " nationalization " or *' naturalization," was not sud- denly imposed on the Subiime Porte in its entirety. The capitula- tions were" there, or else in conr.se of formation, and the interpreta- tions and extensions to which they gave rise were ready for applica- tion, backed and strengthened by precedent. In conformity with the capitulations of 1569 the interpreters of the French ambassadors were " protected " by being exempted from all " subsides et impots." By the year 1740 this protection was practically extended not only to all employes of all the diplomatic missions, but even to those of the consulates. For certain diplomatic and consular officers this word " employes " was taken in so broad a sense that it included not only genuine employes and servants of every kind, but even friends who might be in need of " protection." In addition to real diplomatic and consular officers there was thus added a class of wealthy non- Moslem subjects of the Sultan to whom were granted the titles of Venetian, French, Dutch, or English consuls, and who were protected by their respective diplomatic missions, and in turn protected their own " employes " with their families. To these were again added certain merchants called " beratlis," as well as agents and brokers dealing with or for foreigners. So that in the eighteenth century there was a large and increasing number of native subjects of the Porte who, without obtaining foreign nationality, were yet partak- ers of the general extraterritorial privileges enjoyed by foreigners. This was followed in the nineteenth century by wholesale naturali- zations, granted by some representatives of certain powers not onlv to proteges, but even to non -Moslem subjects of the Porte who had never been outside the frontiers of the Empire. This unfortunate state of affairs could only cause difficulties and complications for the Ottoman Government, and the Sublime Porte searched for a remedy in order to strike at the root of all these abuses. It therefore not only opened energetic and succassful diplo- CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 527 matic negotiations with certain of the embassies with a view to putting an end to the system of abusive protection and naturaliza- tion, but, by a wise policy, decided to place all Ottoman subjects, irrespective of religion, on an equal footing, knowing that in this way its non-Moslem subjects would not be so anxious to obtain foreign protection. When, by the treaty of Paris, of 1856, the powers admitted Turkey to participate in the advantages of European pub- lic law and in the concert of nations, they could not thereafter allow the continuation of the abuses of the former system of European pro- tection and naturalization. In 1860 the Sublime Porte adopted cer- tain repressive measures against Ottoman subjects who attempted to change their nationality while residing in Turkey. In 1863 a special convention was signed with Russia, and in the same year was pub- lished the " Regulation in regard to foreign consulates in Turkey," which limited foreign protection to Ottoman subjects in the actual service of consulates and certain missionary establishments or foreign monasteries. The number of such proteges who may be employed by consulates or in such ecclesiastical establishments is fixed by this regulation, which it was agreed would have no retroactive effect. The ground was now prepared for the elaboration of a law of nationality — the one whereof the translation is inclosed. It was first promulgated on the 19th of January, 1869, and communicated to the foreign missions in Constantinople in February of the same year. The missions were not at first disposed to accept the law, on the ground that their consent was not obtained before its promulgation. But the Sublime Porte pointed out that as the law would have no retroactive effect, any person who had already obtained a foreign nationality before its promulgation would be considered as a foreign subject, so that the law could affect none but Ottoman subjects, whose relations of allegiance with their own Government were established by it. In other words, the Sublime Porte considered, and the mis- sions finally admitted, that this was a matter entirely of internal administration. We thus see what the circumstances were which led to the drafting of the present law and why the Ottoman legislator is careful to lay down as a principle that in no case can an Ottoman subject change his nationality without previously obtaining permission from his Sovereign. The law of 1869 can now be examined article by article: Article I. " Persons born at a time when their parents, or only father, are of Ottoman nationality are considered Ottoman subjects." This declares the principle that all persons, irrespective of their place of birth or of residence, follow the nationality of their fathers. Article II. "Any person born in the Imperial Dominions (Ottoman Empire) at a time when his (or her) parents are of foreign nation- ality can, by right, within three years beginning with the date of his (or her) majority, claim Ottoman nationality." The same principle is true not only in the case of Ottoman subjects born outside the Ottoman Empire, but also in that of persons born in Turkey of foreign parents. Only in case such persons should desire to become Ottoman subjects, the law grants them certain facilities which foreigners born outside of the Empire do not enjoy. The age of majority in this case is fixed by the laws of the country of which the applicant's father is a subject. 528 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. Article III. "A foreigner of age who has lived in the Ottoman Empire consecutively for five years can obtain Ottoman nationalitj"' by submitting personally, or through intermediary, a petition to the department of foreign affairs." The same remark about the age of majority holds true of this article. Certain rules are, however, observed in the case of foreign- ers who become naturalized Ottomans which are applicable as well to persons who come within the category of those mentioned in Articles II and III. Foreigners belonging to these classes who seek Ottoman naturalization must first produce a certificate from the consulates to which they belong stating that the applicant has not deserted from the military service of his country, and that no criminal prose- cution has been instituted against him. Article IV. " The Imperial Ottoman Government extraordinarily receives into its allegiance foreigners as well whom it considers to be worthy of an exceptional favor, even should they not have fulfilled the conditions prescribed in the preceding article." Article IV covers persons who render special services to the Otto- man Empire, or to whom the Imperial Government wishes to render an exceptional favor, (a) It is here necessary to mention the case of non-Moslem foreign subjects who, within the dominions of the Em- pire, embrace the Moslem religion. (&) Immigrants who come to Turkey for permanent residence acquire Ottoman nationality with no other formality than that of taking an oath of allegiance, (c) A foreign woman, when she is married to an Ottoman subject, ipso factobecomes an Ottoman subject without any further formality. Article V : " Persons who, being authorized, enter from Ottoman into a foreign nationality are, from the date when they change their nationality, considered as foreign subjects and treated as such. But if he (or she) should enter into a foreign nationality without being authorized by the Imperial Ottoman Government, his (or her) new nationality shall be considered as null and void, and he (or she) shall be considered as an Ottoman subject as before, and in every matter he (or she) shall be treated exactly as Ottoman subjects are treated. In any case, the abandonment by an Ottoman subject of his (or her) nationality depends on an instrument to be granted in virtue of an imperial irade." This article states very clearly the principle that an Ottoman sub- ject can not, unless authorized by his Government, change his nation- ality, and that even in case he should without such authorization be naturalized in a foreign country, the Ottoman Government will not recognize him as a foreign subject. The fact of a prolonged resi- dence in a foreign country does not alter the case, and children born during such residence are Ottoman subjects. An Ottoman subject who, by special authorization, is allowed to relinquish his nationality is considered from the date of his naturali- zation as a foreign subject. Although the law does not expressly state so, it is generally admitted that should such Ottoman subject wish again to acquire Ottoman nationality, he can do so in the same way and under the same conditions as other foreign subjects. In this con- nection it would be interesting to note that a departure from these principles would have been made had the convention on naturalization between the United States of America and Turkey been ratified. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 529 In conformity with the provisions of that convention, an Ottoman subject who had been naturalized in America (without previous authorization from his Government) and returned to Turkey would, during two years, be regarded as an American citizen. If, however, he remained in Turkey for more than two years, he would then be regarded as an Ottoman subject and not an American citizen. An Ottoman subject who wishes permission to change his nation- ality must be of age, and he must prove that he has serious commer- cial or other legitimate relations with the country of which he intends to acquire a citizenship, the Ottoman Government being the judge as to whether such relations are satisfactory. He must further prove that there is no criminal prosecution against him in the Ottoman Empire and that he owes no debts to the Imperial Government. Should the Sublime Porte be satisfied after such investigation, the matter is submitted to His Imperial Majesty the Sultan, who can either grant or refuse it. The formalities in connection with obtain- ing such permission are exceedingly long and not easily accom- plished, and it is only rarely granted. This permission may excep- tionally be granted after an Ottoman subject has been naturalized and permanently domiciled in a foreign country. Such authoriza- tion would be more in the nature of an official recognition of the foreign naturalization. It may here be mentioned that a certain class of Ottoman subjects, especially those emigrating to America, are allowed to leave the country on condition that they abandon their Ottoman nationality. The formalities in these special cases are easier, and are of frequent occurrence. Such persons have to present petitions requesting per- mission to leave the Empire. They pledge themselves never to re- turn to Turkey, and declare that they abandon their Ottoman nation- ality. These facts are inserted in the registers of the Census, and after several copies of their photographs have been deposited and it is clear that they owe nothing to the Government they are permitted to leave the country. It should be remarked that these people have no nationality from the date when they abandon their Ottoman allegiance to that when they obtain naturalization in the country of their adoption. (Kemark on Article V: The Turkish text of this begins in the plural, " persons who enter from Ottoman," etc., and continues in the singular, " but if he should enter into a foreign nationality," etc.) Article VI : " If the Ottoman Empire should so wish it can reject from its subjection the person who, without authorization from the Imperial Ottoman Government, changes his nationality in a foreign country, or enters into the military service of a foreign Government. The return into the imperial dominions (the Ottoman Empire) of persons of this category whose nationality has been rejected is for- bidden." After laying down the principle that an Ottoman subject can not, without permission from his Sovereign, change his nationality, and that, even if he should do so, such change shall not be recognized by the Imperial Government, the legislator points out in Article VI the possible consequences of such change. When an Ottoman subject without permission is naturalized in a foreign country, the Ottoman Government may content itself with simply considering such natur- H. Doc. 326, 59-2 34 530 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. alization as null and void. In that case, if such a person returns to Turkey, he is allowed to remain as an Ottoman subject. As his for- eign naturalization is null and void he is deprived of no rights what- ever as an Ottoman subject. It may, however, if it should so wish, reject such a person from its subjection. Such rejection implies pro-' hibition of such person returning or remaining in Turkey, and dis- qualifies him from the right to inherit and hold real property in Turkey. It would not be out of place to quote here Articles II and III of the law of Rabi-ul-Akhir, 1300 (1883), in regard to tenure of landed property by former Ottoman subjects : " Persons who, without obtaining official authorization from the Imperial Government, have changed their nationality, and whose (Ottoman) nationality has been canceled by the Imperial Government, are deprived of the right of owning landed property in Turkey and of obtaining it by inherit- ance." " The mulk properties of persons who may, according to the foregoing article, be deprived of the right of ownership and inherit- ance, are divided among their heirs who are Ottoman subjects like personal property. But according to the provisions of articles 110 and 111 of the land code, such persons have no longer the right of tapu (possession) in miri or mevcoufe lands; miri or mecoufe lands which they may have possessed before they changed their nationality, without going to their heirs, become escheated. Exactly the same course is followed in the case of id j are teinli vacf property." Articles CX and CXI of the land code : " The land of an Otto- man subject does not pass by inheritance to his heirs who are foreign subjects; and a foreign subject can not have the right to tapu (pos- session) in the land of an Ottoman subject." " The land of the per- son who, without obtaining official authorization, abandons his Otto- man nationality, does not pass by inheritance to his children, grand- children, father, mother, brothers, sisters, husband, or wife, who are Ottoman or foreign subjects. It becomes forthwith escheated; and without seeking for persons entitled to the right to tapu, it is put up at auction and given to the intended purchaser (highest bidder). In case, however, such person has changed his nationality by obtain- ing official permission, his land is not escheated, but remains vested in him. This, however, on condition that the Government whose nation- ality he has acquired should have signed the protocol attached to the law allowing the acquisition of landed property by foreign subjects." The right to cancel the Ottoman nationality of one of its subjects is vested solely in the Imperial Government, and is exercised only in rare and extreme cases. Article VH- " The woman who, while an Ottoman subject, mar- ries a foreigner, may return to her original nationality if, within three years following the date of her husband's death, she petitions for it. The provision of this article applies to the person ; the mat- ter of ownership of mulk and arazi property is subject to the general laws and regulations." This article does not clearly state that an Ottoman woman who marries a foreign subject follows the nationality of her husband, but that result is implied and made clear by subsequent ministerial cir- culars and a decision of the council of state, as well as by the general practice followed in the matter; and it can now be stated that such CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 531 a woman marrying a foreign subject ipso facto becomes a foreign subject and does not need to apply for or obtain authorization from the Imperial Government. The somewhat obscure wording of the article is explained by the fact: (A) That according to the Sheri law, the marriage of a non-Moslem woman who is a subject of the Moslem state, with a foreign subject, has no effect on her nationality and she still remains a subject of the Moslem state. The Ottoman legislator, while admitting and inserting in the law of 1869 a prin- ciple sanctioned by almost all civilized countries, did not wish to state clearly this principle which might seem to be in flagrant con- tradiction with the provisions of the sacred Sheri law. The differ- ence in the two systems of law may imply very serious consequences in the matter of inheritance. (B) The second explanation for this somewhat obscure wording is that the Ottoman subject woman may marry a foreigner whose laws do not grant her his nationality. In that case, if the Ottoman law had very clearly stated that by the fact of her marriage with a foreign subject she loses her Ottoman nation- ality, while on the other hand it so happened that his law did not grant her his nationality, then she would be left without a nation- ality. The article therefore has been worded in this way in order to meet all exigencies. An exception is made in the case of Turkish women marrying Per- sians in Turkey. Such mixed marriages are forbidden in virtue of an Imperial Firman of the year 1237, as well as by a regulation and Grand Vizerial order of 1291 (the present Hejira year is 1324) . If, however, Turkish women should, contrary to this prohibition, marry Persians, they, as well as any children born of such marriages, are none the less considered to be Ottoman subjects. Article VIII : "The children, even if they should be minors, of per- sons who have changed their Ottoman nationality, or have been deprived of it, do not follow the nationality of their fathers, but remain Ottoman subjects. And the children of the foreigner who has entered into the Ottoman nationality, even if they should be minors, do not follow the nationality of their father, but are con- sidered as foreigners." This article is based on the principle that children born before the change of nationality of their fathers do not follow the newly- acquired condition of their father. This is true both in the case of the children of Ottomans who have become foreign subjects and of the children of foreigners who have become Ottoman subjects. How- ever, children born after the change of nationality of their father follow his citizenship. Article IX. " Every person inhabiting the Imperial dominions is considered as an Ottoman subject, and treated as an Ottoman subject. If he (or she) is a foreign subject it is necessary for him (or her) to prove it in a regular manner." In reading this article it must be borne in mind that a large num- ber of Ottoman subjects had obtained an ambiguous foreign nation- ality and enjoyed the privileges of the Capitulations. The Sublime Porte aimed at curtailing the latter and putting an end to the abuses of foreign protection. It therefore declares the general rule that every person residing in the Empire is an Ottoman subject. He who claims foreign nationality must prove it. Questions of nationality 532 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. are examined by an office specially created for this purpose — namely, the Bureau of Nationality, attached to the Ottoman Department of Foreign Affairs. This office does not regard as conclusive evidence of foreign nationality the fact that a person is the bearer of a foreign passport or is registered in a foreign consulate. N. B. — In the present translation of the law of 1869, the Turkish word " tabiyet," subjection, has been rendered as " nationality," " citizenship," or allegiance." BULGARIA. [Enclosure in despatch from Mr. Jackson, diplomatic agent in Bulgaria, No. 166, Decem- ber 3, 1906.] MEMORANDUM BY THE BULGARIAN MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS. [Translation.] The rights of citizens (subjects) in Bulgaria are regulated by the constitution, the fundamental law of the principality. All Bulgarian citizens are equal before the laws, which do not admit of any division into classes, titles of nobility, or other distinc- tions (articles 57 and 58 of the constitution) . Bulgarian citizens alone enjoy political rights; while civil rights, in conformity with the laws, are shared by all residents of the prin- cipality (art. 60). No one has the right to buy or sell human beings in Bulgaria. Any slave, of whatever age, sex, religion, or nationality, is free as soon as he puts foot on Bulgarian territory (art. 61). Bulgarian subjects alone have the right to fill public offices (fonc- tions), municipal (civil) or military. Foreign subjects may be in- vited to fill public offices, but in that case the authorization of the national assembly must always be obtained. All those are considered Bulgarian subjects who were residents of (domiciled in) the Principality at the moment of its creation, or who have been born in the Principality. All persons are also considered subjects who, since the creation of the Principality, have acquired or may acquire Bulgarian nationality in conformity with the law of January 5, 1904. According to the provisions of this law, Bulgarian nationality may be acquired in three ways — by birth, by naturalization, and by mar- riage. Bulgarian nationality can be lost — 1. When a Bulgarian subject becomes naturalized abroad, or acquires foreign nationality upon his request, by effect of articles 45, page 4, 6, page 3, 7, 15, page 2 and 16, of the law cited above. Nevertheless, if he has not complied with his military obligations in Bulgaria, his naturalization abroad has not the effect of mak ing him lose his Bulgarian subjection, unless it has taken place with the con- sent of the Bulgarian Government ; 2. When a Bulgarian subject declines his Bulgarian subjection, under the conditions provided for by articles 5, pages 4, 11, and 18 ; 3. When a Bulgarian subject, having accepted a position (fomo- tions publiques) conferred by a foreign government, maintains such a position, in spite of his being called upon by the Bulgarian Govern- ment to resign it within a given time ; CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 538 4. When a Bulgarian subject, without authorization from the Bul- garian Government, takes military service abroad, although he is still liable for punishment if he evades military service in his own country. Any Bulgarian subject residing abroad loses his Bulgarian nation- ality if he fails to return to Bulgaria within a given time, when sum- moned to do so in case of war. Any Bulgarian subject who has lost his nationality under the con- ditions mentioned above can recover the same by renewing his resi- dence in Bulgaria. In that case his repatriation is made by princely decree. The quality of Bulgarian subject may also be accorded by the same decree to the wife and major children upon their demand; minor children become Bulgarian subject by right, unless they de- cline this quality during the year following, their majority. Any Bulgarian subject who, without authorization from his Gov- ernment, takes military service abroad, may not return to Bulgaria without permission accorded by princely decree, and he can only recover his Bulgarian nationality by complying with the conditions imposed upon a foreigner, by ordinary naturalization. The acquisition by a Bulgarian of a foreign nationality does not modify the status (sujetion) of his wife and major children. Like- wise, the loss of Bulgarian nationality does not carry with it that of ihe wife and major children. Minor children of a widowed mother do not lose their Bulgarian nationality if their mother marries a for- eign subject. Ukugttay. constitution. [Translation.] Section II. — Citizenship, the rights thereof, and the manner in which they are suspended and lost. Chapter I. 6. The citizens of the Oriental State of Uruguay are either native born or naturalized. 7. All free men born in any part of the territory of the State are native-born citizens. 8. The following are naturalized citizens: Foreigners who are the parents of native-born citizens and who were domiciled in the country before the establishment of the present constitution; the children born abroad of a father or mother born in the country, as soon as they take up their residence therein ; foreigners who have fought or may fight in the army or navy of the nation as officers; foreigners, even without children, or with foreign children, but married to women of the country, who, professing some science, art, or industry, or hav- ing some capital invested in business or real estate, reside in the State at the time this constitution is adopted; foreigners, married to for- eign women, who possess some of the qualifications just mentioned, and have resided three years in the State; unmarried foreigners who 534 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. also have some of said qualifications and have resided here four years ; those who are granted citizenship as a special favor by the Assembly for notable services rendered or for eminent merits. Chapteb II. 9. Every citizen partakes of the sovereignty of the nation, and is therefore entitled to vote and be voted for in the cases and in the manner hereinafter specified. 10. Every citizen may be called upon to fill public offices. Chapter III. 11. Citizenship is suspended for the following causes: (1) Physical or moral incapacity which prevents free and deliber- ate action. (2) Being a hired servant, day laborer, a private soldier of the line, .notoriously a vagrant, or undergoing a criminal prosecution which may result in a corporal or infamous punishment. (3) Habitual drunkenness. (4) Not having reached 21 years of age, unless married at 18. (5) Inability to read or write, in the case of those who acquire active citizenship from and after the year 1840. (6) Insolvency declared by a competent judge. (7) Being a debtor in arrears to the public treasury. CHAPTER IV. 12. Citizenship is lost for the following causes : (1) Receiving a sentence which imposes an infamous penalty. (2^ Fraudulent bankruptcy, so declared. (3) Naturalization in another country. (4) Acceptance of employment, distinctions, or titles from another government without special permission of the assembly; it being possible, in any of these four cases, to request and obtain rehabili- tation. Venezuela. [Enclosure in despatch from Mr. Russell, minister to Venezuela, August 5, 1906. — Trans- lation.] MEMORANDUM. 1. Laws relative to citizenship in Venezuela. The following provision is contained in title 3, section 1, of the national constitution: Art. 8. Venezuelans are so either by birth or naturalization, (o) The following are Venezuelans by birth: 1. All persons who have been born or who may be born on Venezuelan terri- tory; and 2. The children of Venezuelan parents, whatever be the place of their birth, (ft) The following are Venezuelans by naturalization: 1. Persons who have been or may be born in the Spanish-American Republics, provided they have acquired domicile in the Republic and have manifested their desire to become Venezuelans ; CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 535 2. Foreigners who have obtained naturalization papers in accordance with the laws ; 3. Foreigners who acquire Venezuelan nationality by virtue of special laws ; and 4. A foreign woman married to a Venezuelan, while the marriage bond con- tinues, it being necessary, in order to preserve such nationality after the bond has been dissolved, to make the statement referred to in the following article within one year after the dissolution. Art. 9. The declaration of a desire to become a Venezuelan must be made before the chief recording officer of the jurisdiction within which the declarant establishes his domicile, who, upon receiving it, shall record it in the proper register and send a copy of it to the National Executive for publication in the Official Gazette. A law of May 3, 1882, defines who are the Venezuelans by birth referred to in the constitution in force at that time (that of 1881), It is as follows: Law of May 3, 1882, defining who are the Venezuelans by birth referred to in the federal constitution as being qualified to hold high public offices. The Congress of the United States of Venezuela decrees : Single article. The Venezuelans by birth referred to in the federal consti- tution in articles 26, 66 (pars. 4 and 7), and 86 as being qualified to hold the offices of President of the' Republic, Senator, member of the high federal court, diplomatic posts, consulates-general, and positions under the treasury department except that of minister, are — First. Those born on Venezuelan territory, whatever be the nationality of their parents. 1. The territory includes the maritime and fluvial waters of the Republic, its war ships in every region, and its merchant vessels when on the high sea or in the waters of another nation whose laws do not confer local citizen- ship on those born therein. 2. Foreign war ships are considered as foreign territory even when situated in national waters. 3. The houses of foreign diplomatic ministers are also considered to be foreign territory for the purposes of this law as far as the children are con- cerned who are born therein. Second. Persons born of a Venezuelan father or mother in any part of the territory which constitutes the Republic of Colombia, as provided by the con- stitution of Venezuela of 1830. Third. Persons born in foreign countries of Venezuelan parents who were absent in the service or on account of the Republic, or by express permission of a competent authority, from September 22, 1830, to April 22, 1864, when the constitutions of 1830 and 1857 which thus declared were successively in force. Fourth. Persons born of a Venezuelan father in, foreign countries where he is fulfilling diplomatic functions. Fifth. The children of a Venezuelan mother or father who were born in another territory, if they have come to establish their domicile in the country and have expressed their desire to this effect, according to the similar provisions of the constitutions of 1864, 1874, and 1881. Given in the Palace of the Federal Legislative Body, in Caracas, May 4, 1882. Year 19 of the Law and 24 of the Federation. J. P. Rojas PatSt, President of the Senate Chamber. A. Cova, President of the Chamber of Deputies. M. Caballero, Secretary of the Senate Chamber. J. NlCOMEDES RAMIREZ, Secretary of the Chamber of Deputies. Federal Palace in Caracas, May 3, 1882. Year 19 of the Law and 24 of the Federation. Let it be enforced. GuzmAn Blanco. Countersigned: Ezequiel Mar! a Gonzalez, Acting Minister of the Interior. 536 CITIZENSHIP OP THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 2. Means by which citizenship in Venezuela is lost. The only provision existing in our laws regarding loss of citizen- ship is article 19 of the Civil Code, which reads as follows : A Venezuelan woman who marries a foreigner shall be considered as a foreigner with regard to the rights peculiar to Venezuelans, provided she acquires the nationality of her husband by the fact of marriage, and while she remains married. The rights peculiar to Venezuelans mentioned in this article are political rights, and may be summed up into those of voting and being voted for. 3. Does the law of Venezuela authorise or not the renunciation of citi- zenship; and if so, what are the conditions for reacquiring the citizenship thus renounced? A provision which was contained in some previous constitutions is not included in the national constitution now in force, to wit: Those who establish their domicile and acquire citizenship in a foreign country do not lose their Venezuelan nationality. A law of May 15, 1882, reads as follows : Law of May 15, 1882, by which it is declared that article 6 of the Federal con- stitution does not deny the right of expatriation, and is applicable to the case in which Venezuelans who have made use of this right return to the Republic. The Congress of the United States of Venezuela decrees : Single article. Article 6 of the Federal constitution, according to which " those who establish their domicile and acquire nationality in a foreign country do not lose their Venezuelan nationality," does not deny the right of expatria- tion, but merely declares a principle which is applicable to the case in which the citizens in question return to the Republic, which then considers them as if they had remained in it continually. Given in the Federal Palace of the Legislative Body, in Caracas, May 5, 1882. Tear 19 of the Law and 24 of the Federation. J. P. Rojas PaTJL, President of the Senate Chamber. A. Cova, President of the Chamber of Deputies. M. Caballero. ♦ Secretary of the Senate Chamber. J. NlCOMEDES RAMfBEZ, Secretary of the Chamber of Deputies. Federal Palace in Caracas, May 15, 1882. Tear 19 of the Law and 24 of the Federation. Let it be enforced. GuzmAn Blanco. Countersigned : Ezequiel MaeIa Gonzales, Acting Minister of the Interior. (Collection of Laws and Degrees of Venezuela. Vol. X, No. 2418.) 4. May residence in foreign countries affect the citizenship of origin, and if so, to what extent? The residence in a foreign country of a Venezuelan can not affect his nationality no matter how long such residence may be. CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. 537' 5. The practice of the Venezuelan Government in protecting its citi- zens residing permanently in other countries. This protection is afforded by the Venezuelan Government in accordance with the general principles of law. It may be appropriate to quote here article 20 of the Penal Code, which provides as follows : The extradition of a Venezuelan can not be granted for any cause ; however, he must be prosecuted in Venezuela at the instance of the injured party or of the public prosecutor, if the crime with which he is charged is punishable according to the Venezuelan laws. 6. Lavj regarding naturalization and the acquisition of citizenship. There is a law on the naturalization of foreigners, dated June 13, 1865, to wit : Decree of June 13, 1865, abrogating law No. 547 of 1844 on the naturalization of foreigners. The Congress of the United States of Venezuela decrees : Art. 1. All foreigners may obtain naturalization papers who request them provided they reside in the country. Aet. 2. A foreigner desiring naturalization papers shall apply directly to the National Executive, or through the President of the State where he resides, in a memorial stating his desire to become naturalized, the nation of his origin, his status and profession, and making a promise of fidelity to the constitu- tion and laws of the Union, besides giving any other grounds of which he wishes to avail himself. Aet. 3. The National Executive shall issue the papers on the strength of the application. Aet. 4. When the naturalization papers have been issued and a record thereof made in the register of the ministry of foreign relations, they shall be pub- lished in the press. Aet. 5. Persons already naturalized by virtue of the laws of Colombia and Venezuela shall continue in conformity therewith in the enjoyment of their rights without the necessity of new papers. Aet. 6. The law on the subject of May 27, 1844, is abrogated. Given in the Hall of Sessions of Congress in Caracas, June 8, 1865, being the 2nd of the Law and the 7th of the Federation. Antonio L. Guzman, President of the Senate. Victoe J. Diez, President of the Chamber of Deputies. Anders A. Silva, Secretary of the Senate. J. A. TORREALBA, Secretary of the Chamber of Deputies. Caracas, June 13, 1865, 2d and 7th. Let it be enforced. A. Guzman Blanco. By- the General Citizen First Designated, exercising the functions of Presi- dent of the Republic. J. B. Pachano, Minister of the Interior and Justice. (Collection of Laws, Vol. IV, No. 1497.) The following is another law on the same subject : Law of May 25, 1882, by which it is declared that the minor children of foreigners naturalized or to be naturalized in Venezuela, immigrants protected by the laws of immigration, and foreigners exercising the right of suffrage In the Republic are Venezuelans. 538 CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPATRIATION, ETC. The Congress of the United States of Venezuela decrees : Aet. 1. The minor children of foreigners naturalized or to be naturalized in Venezuela in accordance with the law in force of June 13, 1865, become natu- ralized at the same time as the father, or in default of the latter, the mother. Aet. 2. The wife is also considered to be naturalized at the same time as her husband. Art. 3. The minor natural children of a mother who becomes naturalized follow the status of the latter. Aet. 4. As the National Executive declared in a resolution of December 1, 1865, all persons are Venezuelans who have come or may come to the country as immigrants, provided they have received the benefits of the immigration law, for this was a condition previously established by the said decree. It does not matter if they have not asked or do not ask for citizenship papers. , Aet. 5. The exercise of the right of suffrage on the part of a foreigner implies the acquisition of citizenship in Venezuela without the need of papers. Every time that this happens the president of the respective electoral board shall make it known, through the governor of the federal district or the president of the State, as the case may be, to the ministry of foreign relations in order that the latter may record the person in the register of naturalized citizens. Aet. 9. Persons who have adopted the nationality of the Republic have no right to divest themeselves thereof by returning the naturalization papers or having themselves inscribed in registers of foreigners. Given in the Palace of the Federal Legislative Body, at Caracas, May 23, 1882. Year 19 of the Law and 24 of the Federation. J. P. Rojas PaTil, President of the Senate. A. Cova, President of the Chamber of Deputies. M. Cabaixero, Secretary of the Senate. J. NlCOMBDES RAMfBEZ, Secretary of the Chamber of Deputies. Federal Palace in Caracas, May 25, 1882. Year 19 of the Law and 24 of the Federation. Let this be enforced. GuzemXn Blanco. Countersigned : Ezequiel Ma. Gonzales, Minister of the Interior. The law in force on immigration does not compel the immigrant to become a Venezuelan citizen. O