Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

On the contrary, sec. 2168, R. S., provides for the regular admission to citizenship of the widow and children of such a person.

Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Kasson, min. at Berlin, Jan. 15, 1885, For. Rel. 1885, 394, 395.

"Passports are only granted to citizens of the United States, and as Mr. Hoesli has not yet complied with the requisiExecutive action. tions of the naturalization laws of the United States his request can not be acceded to. No reason is perceived, however, why a consul of Switzerland should not give him a passport. to his own country, as his certificate only shows his intention of becoming a citizen of the United States, and in that event to renounce his allegiance to Switzerland, which has not yet been done."

Mr. Upshur, Sec. of State, to Mr. Triechel, Nov. 16, 1843, 33 MS. Dom.
Let. 386.

A foreigner who has merely declared his intention to become an American citizen, without having carried that intention into effect, is not an American citizen.

Mr. Buchanan, Sec. of State, to Mr. Campbell, consul at Havana, July 26, 1848, 10 MS. Desp. to Consuls, 473.

Dominie Madini, an Austrian subject by birth, after having taken part in the Lombard revolution in 1848, came to the United States and made a declaration of intention to become a citizen. "In the year 1852, and before he had been long enough in this country to be entitled to naturalization, he returned to Europe and settled in Switzerland, where he has since resided, for the alleged purpose of collecting his fortune, which he has some prospect of being able to do, and then he designs to return and reside in the United States. It is admitted that Madini has not been in the United States for some years. The intention he may entertain, and which it is understood he has declared, to return to the United States may be changed at pleasure, and besides, such an intention, however sincere, is too remote and uncertain to found upon it any obligation for protection.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

. . By Madini's departure from the United States before he was naturalized, becoming domiciled in another country and entering into business there, he relinquished all the advantages, whatever they might be, which he had gained by his temporary residence in the United States and placed himself in relation to this Government on a footing with those foreigners who have never been within its territory."

Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Fay, No. 37, March 22, 1856, MS. Inst.
Switz. I. 47.

See, also, Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Clay, min. to Peru, Dec. 28,

1854, MS. Inst. Peru, XV. 150.

H. Doc. 551-vol 3-22

"The mere declaration of intention to become a citizen does not absolve the party from the allegiance which he owes to the Government of the country from which he comes, and leaves him free to apply to any consul of that Government in this country for a permit to return from whence he came."

Mr. Cass, Sec. of State, to Mr. Washburne, March 9, 1857, 46 MS. Dom.
Let. 379.

See, to the same effect, Mr. Cass, Sec. of State, to Mr. Smith, June 29,
1859, 50 MS. Dom. Let. 441.

"With regard to the other cases which the noble earl [Lord Derby] has brought forward, I have no knowledge of them, or I would have taken pains to inquire into each of them. I certainly do not recollect the case of any person being called on to take the oath of allegiance to the United States, except one in which there was some question with Lord Lyons, and that was the case of a gentleman who had given notice of his intention to become a citizen of the United States. Now, a person wishing to become a citizen of the United States gives notice that at a certain time-within three months he intends to ask leave to become a citizen of the United States. When the time arrives he must not only take an oath of allegiance to the United States, but he must forswear all other allegiance, more especially to Her Majesty Queen Victoria. (Laughter.) This gentleman who was arrested made an appeal to the British Government, and the answer of Mr. Seward to the remonstrance addressed to him was, This gentleman has renounced all allegiance, especially to Her Majesty Queen Victoria.' The matter was further inquired into, and it was found that Mr. Seward was wrong in his fact(hear, hear)--that this gentleman had given notice that he intended. to become a citizen of the United States, and to forswear all allegiance to Her Majesty, but he still remained a British subject. He had thus placed himself in a position in which he could not claim the protection of either one government or the other. (Laughter.)"

[ocr errors]

Earl Russell, Foreign Secretary, in the House of Lords, Feb. 10, 1862, Dip.
Cor. 1862, 31.

This view evidently is different from that expressed by Mr. Cass, and is
not based on any legal effect of the declaration of intention.

"The mere declaration of an intention does not make a person born abroad a citizen. He might change his mind before the arrival of the period for him to take the oath of allegiance, and the law of the United States provides for the interval between the declaration of intention and the final act of naturalization, in order that the person who proposes to become naturalized should have leisure to deliberate on the importance of the proceeding."

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. de Luna, April 22, 1869, 81 Dom. Let. 7.

See, to the same effect, Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dunbar, April 19,
1869, 80 MS. Dom. Let. 594; to Mr. Bissell, Jan 19, 1870, 83 MS.
Dom. Let. 107; to Mr. Bennett, Dec. 24, 1872, 97 MS. Dom. Let. 73;
to Mr. Jay, Feb. 2, 1875, MS. Inst. Austria, II. 319.

Also, Mr. Bancroft Davis, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Fox, consul at
Trinidad de Cuba, May 12, 1869, S. Ex. Doc. 108, 41 Cong. 2 sess. 202.

The fact that a person dying abroad has made a declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United States affords no basis for action by a consul of the United States in respect of the administration of his estate.

Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mrs. Blacklock, Sept. 10, 1878, 124 Dom. Let. 293. Continuing, Mr. Evarts said: "It is only when a citizen dies abroad that the law requires a consul to administer on the estate which he may have left in his district, so far as the local law may allow."

"None but citizens can properly claim protection from the Government, and your declaration to become a citizen does not confer upon you that character." (Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Glendenning, June 7, 1878, 123 MS. Dom. Let. 204.)

"A mere declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United States does not change the nationality of the party making such declaration; he remains until final naturalization a subject or citizen. of his origin (sic). Consequently such declaration of intention would avail you nothing," for purpose of protection in the country of origin.

Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dunne, July 31, 1883, 147 MS.
Dom. Let. 595.

See, also, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Foster, min. to Spain,
April 2, 1883, 146 MS. Dom. Let. 311; to Mr. de Bounder, Belg. Min.,
April 23, 1883, MS. Notes to Belg. Leg. VII. 311; to Mr. Randall,
M. C., March 14, 1884, 150 MS. Dom. Let. 276. In the letter to Mr.
Randall, which related to the arrest, on an American merchant ves-
sel at Sagua la Grande, Cuba, of a Spanish subject who had made a
declaration of intention, Mr. Frelinghuysen observed: “The case of
Koszta differs from this in that the Austrian officers attempted to
seize him upon the territory of a third power, not that of his origi-
nal allegiance." It will be seen, however, that Mr. Marcy's jus-
tification of the protection extended by Captain Ingraham to Koszta,
even in the territory of a third power, was not based upon the fact
that he had made a declaration of intention. Infra, § 490.

Certain persons of Russian origin, who had made a declaration. of intention in the United States, and who afterwards settled in Palestine, claimed protection as American citizens. It was stated that the Russian consular representative having declared that they had lost their Russian citizenship, the Porte asserted that they must be considered as "Turkish subjects." Mr. Frelinghuysen declined

to admit this claim, observing that the persons in question had acquired by their declaration of intention "a quasi right to protection as against the claim of a third power to their allegiance,” and that "we would hold in case of dispute on this point that they retain a future right to perfect their naturalization in conformity with our laws." In a subsequent instruction he said that if the question should arise, the United States would "claim that the person affected shall not be deemed to have become a subject of the Porte until after he shall have had full option" to "complete his naturalization." At the same time Mr. Frelinghuysen admitted that the "declaration of intention is not of itself a renunciation of original allegiance, but simply a record of declared intention to renounce such allegiance on becoming a citizen of the United States."

Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Wallace, min. to Turkey, March 25, 1884, and April 8, 1884, For. Rel. 1884, 551, 560.

The foregoing instruction, in connection with which the instructions of Mr. Blaine to Mr. Hicks, in 1890, infra, pp. 341-343, should be read, bears date eleven days after the letter of Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Randall, supra. Mr. Marcy's position in the Koszta case, as will hereafter be shown, did not in the remotest degree rest upon the strange theory that a person who has merely declared his intention, and therefore has not become a citizen, may acquire an international right to become a citizen by leaving the United States and going to a country other than that of his origin. See, infra, §§ 490, 491.

Until a person has perfected his naturalization in due course of law and obtained his final papers, he can not claim the protection of the United States in case of his voluntary return to the country of his origin.

Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Crain, M. C., Jan. 28, 1886, 158 MS.
Dom. Let. 573.

See, also, Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bendenli, May 13, 1885, 155
MS. Dom. Let. 364.

A declaration of intention does not entitle a person to be registered as a citizen of the United States by the American consuls in China.

Mr. Bayard, Sec of State, to Mr. Denby, min. to China, April 18, 1887,
For. Rel. 1887, 210.

While the United States minister in China might perhaps be justified
under some circumstances in using his "good offices" in behalf of a
person who had made a declaration of intention, it would seem that
such a person, if he was a citizen or subject of a country with which
the United States had a formal treaty of naturalization, would be
excluded from such action. (Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr.
Denby, min. to China, Jan. 13, 1897, For. Rel. 1896, 92, 93.)

An application was made to the Department of State by a citizen of Philadelphia for a passport for a British subject, who had de

[ocr errors]

clared his intention to become a citizen of the United States.
Accompanying the application there was a letter from the British
consul at Philadelphia, which led the Department of State to say:
"Her Britannic Majesty's consul
seems to be under the im-
pression that an alien, when making declaration of his intention to
become a citizen of the United States, abjures his original allegiance.
He does not, however, do so until he appears before the court to
perfect the final act of lawful naturalization, to which the first article
of the treaty of 1870, between this country and Great Britain, refers.
In bringing this matter to your attention it is not intended to raise
any question as to the effect of the declarant's act should he quit this
country before completing his lawful naturalization and under Brit-
ish protection. That is a matter for the court to adjudicate should
he return after such absence and allege that he quitted this country
temporarily and animo revertendi, without intention to abandon
whatever domicil he may have acquired or to interrupt the proba-
tionary period of residence.”

Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. West, 'British min., Oct. 17, 1885, MS.
Notes to Gr. Br. XX. 133.

"I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 70 of January 14 last, in which you inclose a copy of a certificate of protection which you have drawn with a view to its issuance to one William Gylling, a Swedish subject who, in 1881, declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, but never took the subsequent steps necessary for admission to citizenship.

"A comparison of the certificate with your dispatch will disclose a misapprehension in regard to the effect of Mr. Gylling's declaration of intention. It is correctly recited in the certificate that Mr. Gylling declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States of America and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to all and any foreign prince, potentate,' etc.

[ocr errors]

"In your dispatch you say: These men [of the class of Mr. Gylling] are in a state which naturally excites their apprehension, having renounced on oath all allegiance to their native land and not. having completed the formalities which entitle them to be classed as full citizens of the land of their adoption.'

"This statement embodies a very prevalent misapprehension in regard to the effect of a declaration of intention. That act, as its description indicates, is merely expressive of a purpose and does not have the effect either of naturalization or of expatriation. In the case of Mr. Gylling the case is made doubly clear by the treaty of naturalization between the United States and Sweden and Norway of May 26, 1869. By the first article of that treaty it is expressly provided that the declaration of an intention to become a citizen of the

« AnteriorContinuar »