regard it to be its duty to protect them if wronged by a foreign government, while within its jurisdiction for a legal and proper purpose." Mr. Thomas, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Rice, Nov. 4, 1856, 46 MS. Dom. Let. 99. This letter related to a request for passports for eleven colored persons, and cited, on the construction of the Constitution, opinions of Attorney-General Wirt, 1821, and "the present Attorney-General;" 2 Kent's Comm., 277, referring to opinions of Chief Justice Dagget, of Connecticut, in 1833, and the supreme court of Tennessee in Clai borne's case. 5. PERSONS INCLUDED IN PASSPORT. § 499. "When husband and wife and minor children expect to travel together, a single passport for the whole will suffice. For any other person in the party a separate passport will be required." 66 Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, Circular, No. 24, Sept. 25, 1862, MS. Circulars, According to the rules in force in general in the Department respecting the issue of passports, separate passports are issued to a father and his two children on a request therefor, or where reasonable cause is shown. In fact, the practice of including several members of the same family in one passport is to save trouble and expense to the parties themselves. 66 Where good cause is shown therefor, such as the intended residence of one of a family in a foreign land, or a necessity for the use of a passport for a proper purpose, it would seem that the passports might well be issued on making proper application there for and complying with the usual regulations." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Davis, min. to Germany, Nov. 4, 1876, "When the applicant is accompanied by his wife, minor children, or servant who would be entitled to receive a passport, it will be sufficient to state the fact, giving the respective ages of the children and the allegiance of the servant, when one passport will suffice for all. For any other person in the party a separate passport will be required. A woman's passport may include her minor children and servant under the above-named conditions." Rules Governing the Granting and Issuing of Passports in the United The word" servant" does not include a governess, tutor, pupil, companion, H. Doc. 551-vol 3-56 "The servants mentioned in the application are not included [in the passport], as protections are only granted to citizens of the United States." Mr. Crallé, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. McLane, Oct. 26, 1844, 35 MS. "A servant can not be invested, by means of inclusion. in a passport, with the right to protection which that document certifies the employer to possess as a citizen." Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hirsch, min. to Turkey, No. 97, June 18, 1890, MS. Inst. Turkey, V. 134. "This Government does not issue certificates of residence or protection papers' other than passports, which can only be granted to citizens. Adoption of an alien child by a citizen of the United States does not confer American citizenship upon the child.” Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. McCandless, Feb. 13, 1896, 207 MS. Dom. See, to the same effect, supra, § 415. 6. WOMEN. $ 500. In the issuance of passports, "the sex of the person is immaterial.” Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hirsch, min. to Turkey, No. 97, June 18, 1890, MS. Inst. Turkey, V. 134. While a wife may, as is shown in the previous section, be, for convenience, included in her husband's passport, a woman, whether unmarried or married, or a widow, may, if a citizen of the United States, obtain a passport on her own account. Where a woman, an alien by birth, but the widow of a citizen of the United States, applied, while residing in Switzerland, for a passport, it was held that, while she might, as a matter of strict law, remain a citizen, yet, as a citizen had no absolute right to a passport, it would be judicious to decline to grant her application unless she should give evidence of an intention to resume her residence in the United States. Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Rublee, No. 210, April 11, 1876, MS. Inst. 7. MINOR CHILDREN. § 501. Passports are issued to minors who are citizens of the United States. In the case of a minor, however, there may arise a question of double allegiance." In order to meet this contingency, the Government of the United States, from 1870 to 1885, used a qualified form of passport in the case of children born abroad of American fathers. This form, as elsewhere appears, was discontinued, not because of any doubt as to the existence and operation of the principle of double allegiance, but because it was supposed that it might stand in the way of the assertion by the individual of the rights, if any, which might be derived from "domicil." The form was not understood to deny or impair any right of American citizenship. It merely referred to the fact that a conflicting allegiance might exist. The form was merely precautionary, or suggestive, since a double allegiance does not always arise under the conditions to which it referred. Some countries do not claim, as the United States does, or, if they do so, claim only conditionally, the allegiance of all persons born on their soil and subject to their jurisdiction, even though born of alien parents. In order to determine the question, in a particular case, the municipal laws of the countries concerned must be known. It is erroneous either to speak or to think of a person as being a citizen, either jure soli or jure sanguinis, “by international law." International law recognizes both sources; it creates neither. If the municipal law of a particular country does not treat as citizens persons born on the soil, of alien parents, international law does not step in and thrust upon such persons the citizenship of the country. If, on the other hand, the municipal law does not impute citizenship to the foreign-born children of citizens, international law does not impute it. But it recognizes as readily the one rule as the other, as well as the fact that they may perchance both operate at the same time upon the same person. Where application was made to the Department of State for passports for five persons residing in the island of Curaçoa, four of whom were born in that island and one in the island of Saint Thomas, and all of whom were children of native citizens of the United States, but it did not appear that any of the applicants had ever resided or a For the law in relation to double allegiance, see supra, §§ 426–430. intended to reside in the United States, it was advised that they were not entitled to passports. Hoar, At. Gen., 1869, 13 Op. 89. This opinion, and the opinion of Attorney-General Pierrepont, in 1875, 15 Op. 15, are cited with approval by Mr. Blaine, who stated that they had "since been uniformly followed," in his instruction No. 33, Dec. 14, 1889, to Mr. Phelps, min. to Germany, MS. Inst. Germany, XVIII. 277. "Section 4076 of the Revised Statutes expressly limits the grant or issue of passports to citizens of the United States, who must be held to be actual citizens only, so that there is no authority for the issue of passports certifying a qualified or restricted citizenship." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. McLane, min. to France, May 7, 1888, For. Rel. 1888, I. 534, in relation to the case of Henry Asché, to whom a qualified passport was issued by the legation at Paris. The legation was instructed that it was desirable that the passport in question should, if it were practicable, be “recalled and cancelled." "Should not passports be refused to the children of naturalized citizens born abroad, who have never been in the United States, and whose fathers are or were permanently residing abroad? "The answer is in the affirmative, with the qualification that the exclusion does not apply to cases in which the applicant, when arriving at majority, seeks the passport in order to return to the United States with the avowed intention of taking upon himself the duties and responsibilities of American citizenship. If, however, clear proof exists of the father's renunciation of American citizenship prior to the son's birth, then a passport should not be granted to the son." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Vignaud, chargé at Paris, June 13, 1888, The Department of State, after mentioning the objections to issuing a passport to a person who had resided continuously for thirty years in France, the country of his origin, said: "As to the minor children of such a person born abroad, who were never in the United States, and not being sui juris can not elect their domicil or citizenship, the objection to issuing passports to them is even stronger; and during minority they can claim nothing more at least than their parent. The minor does not need a passport to enable him to come to the United States, to which country he can resort whenever he chooses.” Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. McLane, min. to France, July 20, 1888, For. Rel. 1888, I. 551. L. was born in the United States in 1862, his father being a naturalized citizen of German origin. In 1874 the father went to British Columbia, where he became a naturalized British subject. L. accompanied his father to British Columbia, and was still residing there, when in 1889 he applied to the consul of the United States at Victoria for a passport as a citizen of the United States. Held, That, when the father became a British subject, L., being then a minor, was affected by the change of allegiance, and that as he had, since attain ing his majority, elected to remain within the jurisdiction of Great Britain, he was not entitled to a passport as a citizen of the United States. Mr. Wharton, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Wheeler, May 8, 1889, 172, MS. "It has been suggested to the Department that unless this Government recognizes the American citizenship of Arthur Altschul he may be liable to the claims of the German Government, within whose jurisdiction he was born and still lives. It has, however, repeatedly been held, upon the maturest consideration of the law, that the protection of this Government can not be employed for the purpose of enabling a person to escape his obligations to a government to which he owes valid allegiance, and that, in the case of double allegiance, a passport should not be granted by one of the Governments to which allegiance is due in order that the applicant may, while continuing to reside within the jurisdiction of the other, be exempt from its claims. This principle was laid down in 1869 in the case of certain persons residing in Curaçao (13 Op. 89, Hoar, At. Gen.) and again in 1875, in the case of one Steinkauler, in Prussia (15 Op. 15, Pierrepont, At. Gen.), and has since been universally followed.” Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Phelps, min. to Germany, No. 33, Dec. 14, 1889, MS. Inst. Germany, XVIII. 277. In the text of this instruction, the opinion, in 15 Op. 15, is described as that of Attorney-General Williams," but I have given it as Attorney-General Pierrepont's opinion, which it actually was. John Maurice Hubbard, a minor, who was soon to come of age, was born in France of American parents. "By the French law of citizenship a person born in France of alien parents and domiciled in France at the time of reaching majority is allowed one year after reaching majority to elect to retain the citizenship of his parents. In default of so doing, at the expiration of that period and if retaining French domicil, he is to be deemed a citizen of France. It is therefore evident that the acquirement of French citizenship is optional, not obligatory, and that the interested party, on becoming sui juris, is, in any event, as free to choose his citizenship as his domicile. "By the statutes of the United States Mr. Hubbard is by birth an American citizen. His right, however, to claim the protection of |