his residence in the country of his origin without an intent to return to the country of his adoption, he "shall be held to have renounced his naturalization," and that "the intent not to return may be held to exist when the person naturalized in the one country resides more than two years in the other country." Held, (1) that the father must be deemed to have abandoned his American citizenship and to have resumed the German nationality; (2) that the son, being a minor, acquired under the laws of Germany the nationality of his father, but did not thereby lose his American nationality; (3) that upon attaining his majority, the son might, at his own election, return and take the nationality of his birth or remain in Germany and retain his acquired nationality; (4) yet that during his minority and while domiciled with his father in Germany, he could not rightfully claim exemption from military duty there. Steinkauler's case, Pierrepont, At. Gen., 1875, 15 Op. 15. The minor child of a Spaniard, born in the United States and while in the United States, or in any other country than Spain, is a citizen of the United States. "The United States has, however, recognized the principle that persons although entitled to be deemed citizens by its laws, may also, by the law of some other country, be held to allegiance in that country." (Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cushing, Feb. 16, 1877, MS. Inst. Spain, XVIII. 115.) See, also, Steinkauler's case affirmed, in Mr. Wharton, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Goldsmith, Sept. 3, 1890, 179 MS. Dom. Let. 88. "If the father did in fact renounce his American citizenship and resume his original allegiance, in a manner recognized by the laws of his native country, that fact would operate as a renunciation of the adopted citizenship for his minor children, at least while they remain within the jurisdiction which their father reacknowledged." Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Kasson, min. to Germany, Jan. 15, 1885, For. Rel. 1885, 396, 397. In April, 1885, John L. Geist applied to the American legation at Berlin for a passport as a citizen of the United States. He was then sixteen years of age, having been born in the United States in 1869. He gave as his reason for wishing a passport the fact that he had been notified by the German authorities that he might not remain in Germany later than the 1st of the following August. It appeared that his father, a German subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1854, but was not naturalized till 1872. Subsequently, in the same year, he returned to Germany, where, early in 1885, he was formally readmitted to German allegiance. In the certificate of readmission it was expressly stated that it included five of his minor children, who were designated by name. John L. was not among them. It was held that he was entitled to a passport for the following reasons: 1. That, at the time of his birth, his political as well as civil status was in the United States. 2. That, under ordinary circumstances, his status in both relations would have followed that of his father when the latter returned to Germany and resumed his German nationality, but that, as the certificate of readmission by its own terms impliedly excluded the son, the change of the father's nationality and domicil did not affect the nationality and domicil of the child; that the German Government not only accepted the father's change of nationality on the conditions specified, but, by requiring the son to return to the United States at a specified time, conceded the continuance of the latter's American nationality. Mr. Kasson, min. to Germany, to Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, April 15, 1885; Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Pendleton, min. to Germany, May 12, 1885, For. Rel., 1885, 408, 414. "By the law of nations, an infant child partakes of his father's nationality and domicil." 66 Mr. Porter, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Winchester, min. to Switz., Sept. 14, 1885, For. Rel. 1885, 811. It has been settled by frequent rulings in this Department that when a child, who is born in the United States to a father temporarily here residing, returns with his father to the latter's country of native allegiance, such child cannot, during his minority and his residence in such country, call on this Department to intervene in his behalf against such country. In the present case the child was posthumous; the father, though he had taken up a permanent ' residence here and had therefore acquired a New York domicil, had been here but four years at the time of his death, and had not been naturalized; and the mother, in 1870, when the child was one year old, took him back to Germany, where she has resided with him ever since. An interesting question here arises as to whether a widowed mother can, by the principles of international law, change, by her own action, without the approval of the court of the child's domicil, the child's domicil and nationality. That it cannot be so changed is held by eminent continental jurists. (Bar, § 31; 1 Foelix, pp. 54, 55, 94; Denisart, Domicile, § 2.). Der Wittwe,' says Bar, whose authority both in Germany and this country is deservedly high, 'kann dagegen das Recht das Domicil ihrer minderjährigen Kinder zu verändern, nicht zugestanden werden.' To the same effect is Lamar . Micou, 112 U. S. 452. According to this view the mother of the child in question could not, on the bare facts stated to us, change his domicil so as to withdraw him from the protection of the United States. But as he is now in Germany the question is one which, if military service be insisted on, must be presented to the German Government for consideration, and their views heard before this Department can express any final determination in this relation. "The treaty of 1868 provides that citizens of the North German Confederation, who become naturalized citizens of the United States of America and shall have resided uninterruptedly within the United States five years, shall be held by the North German Confederation to be American citizens, and shall be treated as such.' This, however, does not say that persons not falling within this class who are domiciled in the United States shall not obtain from Germany those rights to which such persons are entitled by international law." 66 Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Liebermann, July 9, 1886, 160 MS. Dom. The general view held by this Department is that a naturalized American citizen by abandonment of his allegiance and residence in this country and a return to the country of his birth, animo manendi, ceases to be a citizen of the United States; and that the minor son of a party described as aforesaid, who was born in the United States. during the citizenship there of his father, partakes during his legal infancy of his father's domicil, but upon becoming sui juris has the right to elect his American citizenship, which will be best evidenced by an early return to this country." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. de Weckherlin, April 7, 1888, For. Rel. 1888, II. 1341. A person who stated that he was a German by birth, that he served in the United States Navy during the Civil War, and that he had been a citizen of the United States since 1876, but that he intended to visit Prussia "to stay for several years and perhaps permanently," inquired (in 1896) as to what would under these circumstances be the status of himself and his four minor sons, the eldest of whom was nineteen years of age and the youngest four. The Department of State, referring to Art. IV. of the treaty with the North German Union of Feb. 22, 1868, by which the renewal of residence in the country of origin, without an intent to return to the country of adoption, operates as a renunciation of naturalization, replied that, in case of such renewal of residence, the children, though they were born in the United States, "would be required to elect citizenship on attaining their majority, provided they were still within German jurisdiction," and that, if they decided to retain their American citizenship," the best evidence of this fact would be their return to the United States to remain and discharge their obligations and duties as such." Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Materne, May 29, 1896, 210 MS. Dom. 3. ELECTION AT MAJORITY. § 430. "It is quite clear that the two young Boisseliers, being native born citizens of the United States, and now subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, can not be held under any law, municipal or public, to owe military service to the German Government. Their rights rest on the organic law of the United States. The Constitution declares (Article XIV. of the Amendments) 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. This is the supreme law of the Republic, available alike to all its citizens, whether native or naturalized, and binding upon every Department and officer of this Government. The brothers Richard and Caspar Boisselier, in their present political status, fulfil all its conditions. Their father, it is true, took them to Schleswig when they were quite young, the one four and the other two years old. They lived there many years, but during all those years they were minors, and during their minority they returned to the United States; and now, when both have attained their majority, they declare for their native allegiance and submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the country where they were born and of which they are native citizens. Under these circumstances, this Government cannot recognize any claim to their allegiance, or their liability to military service, put forth on the part of Germany, whatever may be the municipal law of Germany under which such claim may be asserted by that Government. "It follows from this view that any property which they now possess in the German dominions, and any property which they may hereafter acquire in that country, either by purchase, inheritance, or testamentary succession, must be held to be free from liability on grounds arising from their refusal to submit themselves to that Government for the performance of military service. Whether or not the father, Carl Gerhard Boisselier, may by his continued residence in Schleswig have resumed his original nationality and renounced his American citizenship is a question which I do not now undertake to determine nor is its determination deemed essential to the present question." Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. White, min. to Germany, June 6, 1879, The father, C. G. Boisselier, was naturalized in the United States in 1848. sequently they received notices from the Schleswig authorities to For further proceedings in this case, see Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. P. was born in New York in 1854. His father was a native of Denmark, but was said to have been naturalized in the United States; his mother was of American nativity. At the age of four years he was taken abroad by his parents, with whom he lived, at times in England and at times in Denmark. On attaining his majority, being then in Denmark, the authorities called upon him for military service. He asserted his American citizenship. The authorities recognized it, but commanded him as an alien to leave the country. He repaired to England; but, after some years' stay there, returned to Denmark, where, at the instigation of his father, he was put into a lunatic asylum. From the asylum he was soon discharged; but when he again sought to go to England, with a view, it was alleged, to proceed to the United States, the Danish authorities, at the instigation of his father, prohibited him for the time being from leaving the country. He then invoked the interference of the American legation. On these facts Mr. Evarts, while holding that P. was a citizen of the United States by birth, said: "He lost no time, when he attained the of majority, in declaring that he claimed the United States as his country, and that he considered himself a citizen of the United States. He appears to have adhered to this choice ever since, and now declares it to be his intention to return to this country and reside here permanently. His father's political status (whether a citizen of the United States or a Danish subject) has no legal or otherwise material effect on the younger P- -'s rights of citizenship. Under these facts and conditions it will be proper for you to bring the claim to the attention of the Danish Government, with a view to the removal of any obstacles to his departure that may now exist at the instance age |