Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

demurred, claiming the interposition of the American minister in his behalf, upon the ground that he was an American citizen. According to the several municipal laws of the interested states he was a native-born citizen-of the United States because born in its territory; of Austria because of his Austrian parentage. After some correspondence the United States Government declined to interfere in his behalf on the ground that he had expatriated himself: Ist. By his long residence in Austria, by which he created the presumption that he intended to reside there permanently; 2d. By his having signified his willingness to become an Austrian subject, by obtaining passports and travelling under them in that character.

(2.) Case of Martin Koszta.-Koszta was a Hungarian, and so a native-born citizen of Austria. He was concerned in the revolutionary outbreak of 1848, and at the unsuccessful termination of that movement effected his escape to Turkey, where he was arrested and imprisoned, but finally released on condition that he should quit Turkish territory. He went to the United States, took up a residence there, and at the proper time made a declaration, in due form, of his intention to become an American citizen. In 1853, and so before the naturalization process had been completed in his case, he went to Smyrna on business, and was there granted a travelling pass by the United States consul. This paper conferred upon him, to a certain extent, the national character of an American, and stated that he was entitled to American protection. Not long after his arrival in Smyrna his presence was made known to the Austrian consul, and, on June 21, 1853, Koszta was seized by certain persons in the pay of the Austrian consulate, and taken out into the harbor in a boat. At some distance from the shore he was thrown into the water, and was picked up by boats from the Austrian man-of-war Hussar. He was taken on board that ship and was there confined with a view to his ultimate conveyance within Austrian jurisdiction.'

'Foreign Relations of the United States, 1873, part 2, p. 1298; II Dig. Int. Law, §§ 175, 198; Lawrence's Wheaton, pp. 176, 229, 929;

Hall, p. 237; Snow's Cases, Int. Law, p. 226; Cockburn, Nationality, p. 118; Dana's Wheaton, § 86, note 49.

The United States consul at Smyrna protested against this arbitrary action, but without avail, and, as a last resort, reported the circumstance to the American Legation at Constantinople. The St. Louis, a public armed vessel of the United States, commanded by Captain Ingraham, happened to be lying in the harbor of Constantinople at the time, and Captain Ingraham was requested by the chargé d'affaires to proceed to Smyrna and demand Koszta's release, if necessary by a resort to force. In compliance with these instructions Captain Ingraham went to Smyrna and demanded the surrender of Koszta, stating that unless he were delivered up he should take him by force of arms. As such a conflict, aside from its international consequences, would have led to the certain destruction of much of the shipping in the harbor, and to the possible destruction of the town itself, the French consul offered his mediation, and Koszta was delivered into his custody pending the result of the negotiations in his case. As a result Koszta was conveyed back to the United States, the Austrian government reserving the right to proceed against him should he ever return to Turkish territory.

This case has been frequently cited as illustrating many phases of the question of citizenship and allegiance. The following are the more important considerations involved:

(a.) The papers in Koszta's possession gave him the character of an American citizen in so far as the Turkish Government was concerned, and entitled him to its protection. If he were not entitled to those papers, the question resulting was one for decision between Turkey and the United States.

(b.) The action of the Austrian consul was a gross violation of the sovereignty of Turkey, and a serious infraction of the rules of international law.

(c.) The use of force by Captain Ingraham to secure the release of Koszta was also without warrant of international law. It differed from that of the Austrian officials only in that its effects were to vindicate the sovereignty of Turkey. Upon this ground it was defended at the time, and generally justified. (d.) Koszta was not an American citizen. His declaration

of intention to become one, however, entitled him to a qualified amount of protection on the part of the United States; especially in a state where he had the character of an alien, pure and simple, and where the question of his partially acquired allegiance was not complicated by considerations arising out of his allegiance of nativity.

(e.) Had his case been drawn in question by any disinterested power, Koszta would have been regarded as an Austrian subject. This would have resulted from the application of the rule of nativity to his case.

(f.) If a formal decree or sentence of exile was had against Koszta in Austria, that power could have retained jurisdiction over him to the extent of giving perpetual effect to its decree of banishment, by preventing his return to Austrian territory.

Largomarsini's Case. Largomarsini was born in Italy, of Italian parents, and when two years of age was brought by them to the United States. Upon reaching the proper age, and having fulfilled the usual conditions of residence and intention, he was naturalized in San Francisco, a place which he had chosen as his durable abode. He resided there and elsewhere in California until 1875, when he visited Italy for a temporary purpose, and with the intention of returning to the United States and of resuming his residence there at the end of a year. A few days after his arrival in Italy he was notified that he had been drafted into the military service. Claiming to be a citizen of the United States, he refused to obey the summons, and upon this refusal he was arrested as a deserter from the Italian military service. His case was appealed to the highest military tribunal, where the charge of desertion was not sustained, but he was held to the performance of his military service. Intervention was made in his behalf by the United States minister, but without avail, the refusal to release him being based upon the ground that he was an Italian subject, and that his naturalization in the United States had no effect upon his individual status when he returned to Italy.'

'For. Rel. of the United States, 1878, pp. 458-464; Ibid. 1879, p. 600.

Case of Ungar. Leopold Ungar was born in Bavaria, but emigrated to the United States, where he completed the naturalization process in 1856. In 1857 he obtained a passport from the Department of State and returned to Europe, passing and repassing several times between the two countries. The last vise of his passport bore the date of 1861. In 1873 he arrived in Egypt from Italy, under an assumed name, and was arrested at the instance of the Prussian consul in Alexandria, with a view to his extradition for a crime committed in Cologne. He claimed to be an American citizen, but protection was denied him. 1. Because he had expatriated himself; this was proven by long absence from the United States with no intention of returning. 2. Because he had voluntarily subjected himself to Prussian jurisdiction by committing a crime within Prussian territory. His flight to Egypt in no way af fected the question of his national character, as he was subject to the extradition process in Egypt, on the demand of Prussia, in accordance with the terms of an existing treaty of extradition between the two countries.

ALIENS AND DOMICILE.

Aliens. The term alien is applied to any person within the territory of a state, at any time, who is not a citizen or subject of that state, either by birth or naturalization. These foreigners or strangers are susceptible of classification into,

(a.) Aliens, or Aliens Proper, including all those persons who are sojourning temporarily within the state, or who are passing through its territory.

(b.) Domiciled Strangers, including all those persons who have acquired a legal domicile at some place within its territorial jurisdiction.

The peculiar view of allegiance which prevailed during the feudal period survived the downfall of the system in which it had originated, and, in the form of the doctrine of indelible allegiance, became part of the internal political policy of most European states. An individual, born a subject, always retained that character. Such personal and property rights as he was

permitted to enjoy grew out of the fact of his allegiance to his native sovereign, and were not recognized beyond that sovereign's territories. The result was to make the lot of an alien a particularly hard one in early times. So soon as he passed the frontier, and entered the territory of another state, he was regarded as being without rights. Such privileges of residence and occupation as he enjoyed were held upon sufferance only, and could be withdrawn or cancelled at the pleasure of the sovereign in whose territory he was resident. If he died in a foreign country his property, both real and personal, was forfeited to the sovereign in accordance with the droit d'aubaine;' or, at a later period, when more humane usages had begun to prevail, was heavily taxed when withdrawn from the territory, in accordance with the droit de détraction.

As civilization increased, and as commerce and interstate intercourse became general, these harsh provisions were gradually relaxed, though they did not finally disappear until the beginning of the present century. Other restrictions remained, however, notably a disability in the matter of holding land, and "it is only of late years that the right of holding lands on the same conditions as subjects has been conceded to foreigners by most countries." In the matter of holding and transferring

[blocks in formation]

person belonging to one of the confederated states is to be treated in every other as a born native, and to be permitted to acquire real estate. But, as regards other countries, the laws of Bavaria, Prussia, Saxony, and Würtemberg exact for their own subjects, when abroad, the same rights they extend to foreigners in their own dominions."

a Report of (English) Naturalization Commission, 1869, p. 115. b Ibid. p. 128. Ibid. p. 131. d Civil Code of Austria, 33. Civil Code of the Netherlands, SS 884-957- Swedish Statute of Inheritance, chap. xv. § 2.

Hertslet, Map of Europe by Treaty. art. iii. vol. iii. p. 1931. h Report of (English) Naturalization Commission,

« AnteriorContinuar »