In a case involving the validity of the marriage of a citizen of the United States with a Chinese woman at Canton, China, the ceremony being performed by a Roman Catholic priest, it was stated that “a woman's nationality merges on marriage in that of her husband,” and that the Chinese wife of the citizen in question "became, by the mere fact of her marriage, an American citizen." Opinion of Dr. Francis Wharton, law officer of the Department of State, April 29, 1885, communicated by Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Smithers, chargé at Peking. May 4, 1885, For. Rel. 1885, 171, 172. See, however, as to the question of merger of nationality, in the case of a Chinese woman married to a citizen of the United States, a contrary view expressed in Mr. Hay to Mr. Conger, Feb. 5, 1903, supra, § 410, p. 458. In 1888 an agreement was entered into between the German minister at Peking and the tsung-li yamên with reference to jurisdiction over Chinese women who were married to German subjects. The principle was adopted that a Chinese woman married to an alien was subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of her husband's nationality; but it was agreed that the fact of the marriage of a Chinese woman to a German subject should be communicated by the German consul to the local authorities. It was also agreed that the German consular officers should make report of existing marriages; but that, where the parties had failed to request the German consul to report the marriage to the local authorities, and an action at law was brought against the wife, it should be tried and settled by the Chinese authorities. It was also stipulated that, if it appeared that a Chinese woman had been guilty of a crime before her marriage and had married a German subject for the purpose of placing herself under foreign protection, the crime should be punished by the Chinese authorities. Mr. Denby, min. to China, to Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, July 9, 1888, For. "The rule accepted by the Government of China, that places a Chinese woman married to a German under the national jurisdiction of the husband, will probably assist in determining the status, in China, of the Chinese wife of an American citizen, assuming the marriage to be consensual and monogamous; and no special agreement on our part with China or modification of our statute to such end appears to be necessary at present." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Denby, min. to China, Aug. 27, 1888, For. VIII. EFFECT OF PARENTS' NATURALIZATION ON INFANTS. 1. AMERICAN LAW. § 413. "The children of persons who have been duly naturalized under any law of the United States, . 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." Rev. Stats., § 2172; acts of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103; Jan. 29, 1795, § 3, 1 Stat. 414; April 14, 1802, § 4, 2 Stat. 153; Rexroth v. Schein (1903), 206 Ill. 80, 69 N. E. 240, The act of 1802 was intended to operate prospectively as well as retrospectively, and should not be limited to the children of those who had been naturalized at the time of its passage. (Boyd . Thayer, 143 U. S. 135, 177, citing United States r. Kellar, 13 Fed. Rep. 82; West v. West, 8 Paige, 433; State v. Andriano, 92 Mo. 70; State v. Penney, 10 Ark. 621; O'Connor . The State, 9 Fla. 215.) By § 2168, R. S., when an alien, who has made a declaration of intention, 'dies before he is actually naturalized, the widow and the children 66 of such alien" may become citizens upon taking the oaths pre- See Ferguson v. Johnson, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 413; Trabing v. United The naturalization of the father does not relate back to the declaration majority before the father's naturalization. (Berry v. Hull (N. M.), 30 Pac. 936. See, also, Dorsey r. Brigham, 177 Ill. 250, 52 N. E. 303.) Under § 4, act of April 14, 1802, a minor child of a father naturalized as a citizen of the United States became a citizen, though not then within the United States, provided she was resident therein at the time of the passage of the act. Campbell v. Gordon (1810), 6 Cranch, 176. See Behrensmeyer v. Kreitz, 135 III. 591, 26 N. E. 704. Children born abroad of aliens who subsequently emigrated to this country with their families, and were naturalized here during the minority of their children, are citizens of the United States. Bates, At. Gen., 1862, 10 Op. 329; cited in Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of A boy of eighteen years, who has never been out of Germany, but whose is not entitled to obtain the interposition of this Government to secure him from military service in Germany, or to relieve him from being detained in Germany for that purpose. (Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Caldwell, Mar. 6, 1880, 132 MS. Dom. Let. 93.) Section 2172 of the Revised Statutes is regarded "as applicable to such children as were actually residing in the United States at the time of their father's naturalization, and to minor children who came to the United States during their minority and while the parents were residing here in the character of citizens." (Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Kasson, Mar. 31, 1881, For. Rel. 1881, 52, 53.) . "The laws of the United States on the subject of naturalization provide, in relation to persons situated as your sons are, that the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States.' Assuming that your three sons were born in France, accompanied you to this country and have continued to reside here (the fact is not distinctly stated in your letter), they, together with your son born here, are, under the provision just cited, to be considered, when dwelling in the United States, citizens of the United States, with all the rights and privileges attaching to that character, and entitled to the protection which this Government extends to all its citizens in the exercise and enjoyment of these rights. "This Department does not as a rule undertake to give information upon the laws of other countries, nor as to the construction which those countries may put upon their own laws in applying them to persons found within their territorial jurisdiction." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Jouffret, Feb. 11, 1874, 101 MS. Dom. Let. 291. See, also, Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cramer, No. 140, May 22, 1885, MS. Inst. Switz. II. 256; Mr. Wharton, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Cook, April 6, 1892, 186 MS. Dom. Let. 21. A Spanish subject by birth was naturalized in the United States in February, 1876, and thereupon his son, aged twenty, who was born in the Island of Cuba, applied to the State Department for a passport, stating that he had resided in the United States for five years, but that it was his intention to resume his residence in the Spanish dominions and engage in business there. It was held that the son, being a minor at the time of his father's naturalization, must be considered a citizen of the United States within the meaning of section 2172, Revised Statutes, and as such entitled to a passport, and that the circumstance that he intended to reside in the country of his birth did not make him less entitled than if his destination were elsewhere. H. Doc. 551—vol 3—30 Taft, At. Gen. 1876, 15 Op. 114. Quaere, however, as to the applicability of the doctrine of double allegiance in such cases, so long as minority continues. "Under section 2172 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, if, as you state, your father was naturalized while you were a minor, you are by virtue of that fact, if dwelling in the United States, an American citizen, and entitled to protection as such, in case you should be molested upon visiting Germany, your father's native country." Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Goldenberg, Dec. 15, 1884, 153 See, also, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Kasson, min. to Ger- Robert Emden was born in Switzerland in 1862. His father, a native of Switzerland, was naturalized in the United States in 1854, but soon afterwards returned to Switzerland, where he ever afterwards continued to reside. In 1885 the son, who had never been in the United States, applied to the American legation at Berne for a passport. The Department of State held: "The passport application of Mr. Robert Emden, although he is the son of a naturalized American, cannot be granted, because he is not and never has been dwelling in the United States,' according to section 2172 of the Revised Statutes." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cramer, min. to Switz., June 27, 1885, (Mr. To the same effect is the case of Charles Drevet, decided in 1885. See, also, Mr. Rives, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Haus, Dec. 5, 1888, 170 521)." inger. "Mrs. Heisinger was born in Altona, Prussia. Her husband was also an alien by birth and came to the United States Case of Carl Heis- in May, 1866. He was naturalized August 18, 1871, and died probably not later than 1879. The son Carl was born in Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, January 21, 1871, more than six months before the naturalization of his father. In 1879 Mrs. Heisinger returned to Germany, taking her son with her, and has ever since resided in that country. "It is a reasonable interpretation that the words ‘if dwelling in the United States' were intended, among other things, to meet the case of conflicting claims of allegiance. In this relation it is pertinent to disclose the origin of those words. On March 26, 1790, an act was approved, entitled 'An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization' (Stats. at Large, 103). This was the first law enacted by Congress on that subject. The first clauses prescribed the conditions and methods of naturalization. Then followed these words: "And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of 21 years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. "In 1795 the law of 1790 was repealed by an act of the 29th of January of the former year entitled, 'An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject' (1 Stats. at Large, 414). By the third section of the act of January 29, 1795, it was provided that "The children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States and being under the age of 21 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. "The law on this subject so remained until 1802, on the 14th of April, of which year, an act was approved entitled, 'An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject.' (2 Stats. at Large, 153.) "The fourth section of this act provides 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 shall, if dwelling in the United States, parents being so naturalized be considered as citizens of the United States, and the children of persons who are now or have been citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered citizens of the United States. "It will be observed that in this provision, which is incorporated in section 2172 of the Revised Statutes, the words if dwelling in the United States are transposed. The effect of this transposition was considered by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of |