The Department of State said: In the absence of a treaty of naturalization, the only recourse in favor of Dr. Roman is one of friendly concession by the Nicaragian Government.” Mr. Day. See, of State, to Mr. Merry, min. to Nicaragua, No. 89, May 9, See, also, Mr. Day, See, of State, to Mr. Quay, U. 8. S., July 6, 1898, 230 (100) PERSIA. $450. The position of Persia, as an adherent of the doctrine of indelible allegiance, was defined in the case of Hajie Seyyah, a native subject. who had been naturalized in the United States. In a note to the minister of the United States at Teheran. Nov. 19, 1893, the Persian prime minister declared: "Hajie Seyyah, of Mahallât, is a veritable subject of Persia whether he be resident in Persia or he depart for a foreign land. Under no circumstances can there be any change in his nationality, and wherever he may be he will be a citizen of Persia. I send this reply so that there may be no objections raised in the future." • The Department of State answered: "You may say to the minister of foreign affairs that so far as the case of Hajie Seyyah is concerned the incident was terminated by the announcement that this Government was indisposed to regard him as entitled, under all the circumstances of the case, to protection as a person bona fide conserving his acquired rights as a citizen of the United States. This being so, it does not appear to be necessary or expedient to discuss the abstract question of the right and duty of the Government of the United States toward its lawful citizens." Mr. Uhl, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. McDonald, min. to Persia, Jan. 5, 1894, For. Rel. 1893, 508. The information given below is believed to be correct, yet is not to be considered as official, as it relates to the laws and regulations of a foreign country. Permission to be naturalized in a foreign country is not granted by the Persian Government to a Persian subject if he is under charge for a crime committed in Persia, or is a fugitive from justice, or a deserter from the Persian army, or is in debt in Persia, or fled to avoid pecuniary obligations. If a Persian subject becomes a citizen of another country without the permission of the Persian Government he is forbidden to a For. Rel. 1893, 507. reenter Persian territory, and if he had any property in Persia he is ordered to sell or dispose of it. "There is no treaty between the United States and Persia defining the status of former Persian subjects who have become naturalized American citizens." Circular notice, Department of State, Washington, Feb. 18, 1901, For. (11) PORTUGAL. § 451. "The information given below is believed to be correct, yet is not to be considered as official, as it relates to the laws and regulations of a foreign country. "Military service is obligatory upon Portuguese male subjects, but by becoming naturalized in a foreign country a Portuguese loses his qualifications as such. "On returning to the Kingdom with the intention of residing in it he may reacquire Portuguese subjection by requesting it from the municipal authorities of the place he selects for his residence. Not making this declaration he remains an alien and is not subject to military duty. "If a Portuguese leaves Portugal without having performed the military duty to which he was liable and becomes naturalized in a foreign country, his property is subject to seizure, and that of the person who may have become security for him when he left the Kingdom is equally liable. There is no treaty between the United States and Portugal defining the status of former Portuguese subjects who have become naturalized American citizens." Circular notice, Department of State, Washington, Feb. 11, 1901, For. Rel. 1901, 439. "A protracted examination of the files of this Department discloses no case of complaint by reason of the impressment into the Portuguese military service of a naturalized citizen of Portuguese origin, returning to that country." (Mr. Adee, Second Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Costa, Oct. 23, 1897, 221 MS. Dom. Let. 622.) (12) ROUMANIA. $452. "The information given below is believed to be correct, yet is not to be considered as official, as it relates to the laws and regulations of a foreign country. "All male inhabitants of Roumania, except those under foreign protection, are liable to military duty between the ages of 21 and 30 years. “American citizens formerly Roumanian subjects are not molested upon their return to Roumania, unless they infringed Roumanian law before emigrating. One who did not complete his military service in Roumania, and can not prove that he performed military service in the United States, is subject to arrest, or fine, or both, for evasion of military duty. "There is no treaty between the United States and Roumania defining the status of naturalized Americans of Roumanian birth returning to Roumania." Circular notice, Department of State, Washington, Feb. 20, 1901, For. Rel. 1901, 441. (13) RUSSIA. $453. In 1867 Mr. Seward presented to the Russian minister at Washington a draft of a convention of naturalization, and expressed the hope that the Russian Government would accept it, not only as a means of regulating the subject between the two countries, but also as an example and incentive to other governments to conclude similar arrangements with the United States. Prince Gortchakow declined the proposal on the ground that it was the policy of Russia to forbid the return of her subjects who might choose to abandon her protection and escape from their allegiance. Mr. Seward addressed to the Russian minister a long expostulatory argument against this position, but without result. Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Stoeckl, Russ. min., Sept. 9, 1867, MS. Mr. Fish, replying to an inquiry concerning the treaty relations between the United States and Russia, and the treatment of naturalized citizens of the one country on their return to the other, the latter being their country of origin, said: “We have no special treaty with Russia on this subject, nor is this Department informed as to her laws or practice in such cases. The friendly disposition manifested by Russia towards this Government would lead it to entertain the hope that its citizens, who conduct themselves properly in that country, would be allowed to travel therein without molestation." Mr. Fish subsequently stated, however, in the case of a native of Russian Poland, that the United States could not guarantee him against detention and annoyance on his return to his native country, if he was by its laws liable to military service. Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bednawsky, May 4, 1869, 81 MS. Dom. Let. 58; Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Marks, Feb. 24, 1870, 83 MS, Dom. Let. 333. "The Department has received your despatch No. 180, of the 7th instant, relative to the case of Casimir Kachelski, who you say has been sentenced by a court at Warsaw to be banished to Siberia for becoming naturalized as a citizen of the United States. It seems obvious that that part of the sentence, at least, which is based upon the allegation that Kachelski voluntarily left his native country, is erroneous in point of fact, for, having been a minor when he was sent to Breslau in Silesia for his education, he was legally and actually subject to the will of his parent, and by his obedience thereto cannot properly be accused of having left Poland of his own accord. It is presumed that the Russian law to which you refer prohibits the subject of that Empire from becoming naturalized anywhere. It cannot be believed that it pointedly forbids them from becoming citizens of the United States. If it did, both the enactment and carrying into effect of such a law must be regarded as derogatory to the dignity of this Government and as requiring a remonstrance as being incompatible with those friendly relations which we are desirous of keeping up. "The Department concurs with you that the proper course for Kachelski to pursue, under existing circumstances, would be to petition the Emperor for his pardon. You will in that event support the petition by such representations as you may suppose would be most likely to ensure its success." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Schuyler, chargé at St. Petersburg, No. 144. See, in a similar sense, Mr. Evarts. Sec. of State, to Mr. Foster, min. to "With respect to this Government being able to guarantee you from 'annoyance' in the event of your return to the country of your original allegiance, I must observe that this Government has neither the occasion nor the power to interpret the local laws of Russia with respect to the military duty of Russians naturalized abroad and returning to Russia, and that it is consequently impossible to predict whether you may or may not be molested on that account. In case of molestation, this Government would extend to you all possible protection in like manner as to a native-born citizen of the United States. But, it must not be forgotten that, in the absence of a specific treaty of naturalization, the personal status of a native-born American citizen, and of a Russian who has been naturalized in the United States, may be very different in Russia. The former has clearly never incurred any obligation under the laws of that country, and incurs none by going thither other than that of peaceful observance of the laws of the land. The latter, on the contrary, while yet a Russian, may, under Russian laws, have contracted personal obligations towards his native land, which under those laws may not be extinguished by the fact of leaving the country and acquiring status elsewhere as a citizen or subject of another country. In such case, if an individual so circumstanced with respect to Russian law were to return to that country and voluntarily put himself within its jurisdiction, it is probable that he would be held to the fulfilment of that personal obligation, in like manner as he would be held to discharge any other personal indebtedness cognizable under Russian law. This is the case in other countries, especially in Italy, where cases of this character have arisen affecting Italians naturalized abroad, who have been held to the completion of their personal obligation of military service without redress being practicable. "The Department has no means of knowing what personal obligations you may have contracted under Russian law, prior to your naturalization and while yet a Russian subject, and it must therefore decline to express any opinion on this point." Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cronstine, March 17, 1880, 132 MS. A native Russian, naturalized in the United States, being desirous to In the absence of a treaty of naturalization between the United States |