to the case of Mr. F. A. Schneider, who has been ordered by the military commander of the district of Zurich to report immedi ately for physical examination and military duty. "Mr. F. A. Schneider is, as you have previously reported in your dispatch, No. 45, of October 12, 1896, a native-born citizen of the United States, his father at the time of his birth being lawfully invested with the full and complete character of an American citizen by naturalization. Whatever may be advanced in a contrary sense as respects the dual status of a person acquiring another allegiance without the consent of the state of his origin, this Government can not for an instant admit that such a contention is applicable to the case of a native-born citizen. So far as the knowledge of this Department exists-over more than a century of intercourse with ite Sovereign equals no such contention has been maintained by any other Government, and if suggested has been emphatically denied. "Even upon the careful statements you have recently made concerning the Swiss rule of a cantonal citizenship this extraordinary and exceptional doctrine of inherited allegiance appears nowhere distinctly formulated, and if it be put forward as a doctrine it not only finds no color in the received teachings of international law, but it is in itself faulty because apparently unlimited. There seems to be no end to the chain of inherited subjection which must ensue should the Swiss premise be admitted, for if a native-born son of a citizen of the United States can be claimed by Switzerland as a citizen because his father was formerly a Switzer, the grandson and the descendant of the remotest generations may with equal reason, or rather with equal unreasonableness, be claimed as Swiss citizens. "It seems that he [Mr. Schneider] is held to service purely and simply on the alleged score of owing paramount allegiance to Switzerland. In this respect Article I. of our treaty with Switzerland of November 25, 1850, appears to be distinctly contravened. At the time that treaty was concluded there was no question touching the attitude of the United States in the vital regard of citizenship. Whatever may be argued as to the dual status of an individual forsaking his native land and embracing the allegiance of another government, or whatever claim may be made that the treaty between the United States and Switzerland may not specifically apply to those precise cases, there can be no doubt that the United States purposed and that Switzerland assented to the full protection of all nativeborn citizens of the United States. It is for the benefit of such that our treaties were and are concluded, and for their benefit we must claim their full application. This is not a question of an even counterpoise of claim between two conflicting jurisdictions in which each may in practice be supreme to enforce its own law over all affected 66 Besides, even in the case where the Swiss law would refuse to Mr. Schneider the right of renouncing his original nationality, it wou not be disputed that Switzerland has the right to exact that he fulfill his obligations toward her. This point of view was participated in by an eminent American statesman, Mr. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, who, in a note of June 1, 1852, to the minister of Prussia to the United States [the minister of the United States near the King of Prussia], observed that if a government did not accord to its subjects the right of renouncing their allegiance, it could, in all justice. reclaim their services any time they were found within its jurisdiction. "We wish to hope that these explanations will suffice to convince your excellency that, greatly desirous as we are of maintaining with the United States of America the best relations and of being in accord with your Government, we can not accede to the request made in your letter of March 24 without departing from the laws and the constitution confided to our safe keeping." The Swiss Federal Council to Mr. Peak, U. S. min., April 20, 1897, For. "But little appears to be gained in the way of detailed analysis of and answer to the note of the Swiss Federal Council of April 20, inasmuch as nearly all of the elaborate argument therein presented rests on a fallacious disregard of the essential point which the Department's instruction and your note of March 24 endeavored to present clearly to the Federal Government, viz, that, whatever may be said touching the application of express treaties of naturalization to the case of native subjects emigrating from one state to cast their lot in another and to become citizens thereof by due process of law, that conventional feature is wholly lacking in the case of persons native-born citizens of citizen fathers. By no just process of reasoning can it be claimed that such native-born citizens of citizen parentage are in the category of emigrants of whom the native state may exact renunciation of their original status as a condition to recognizing the acquisition of a new status. What the note of the Swiss Federal Council says, therefore, respecting the neces sity of treaties of naturalization to determine points of allegiance not covered by the general treaties of amity and commerce between states can not be admitted as having reference to the case of a native-born citizen of a citizen father. "It is observed that the note of the Swiss Federal Council rests its argument in part upon a citation from a note stated to have been written June 1, 1852, to the United States minister in Prussia by Daniel Webster, when Secretary of State. The citation is not quite accurate, for no instruction of the date and character described was written by Mr. Webster. Under date of February 14, 1853, Mr. Webster's successor, Edward Everett, writing to Mr. Barnard at Berlin, in treating the case of naturalized citizens of the United States who had been drafted into the Prussian army upon their return to Prussia, refers to a letter written by Mr. Webster to a notary public of New York, named J. B. Nones, of June 1, 1852, in which, allowing for differences for translation, much the same language is found as in the citation made by the Swiss Federal Council. It is to be insisted upon, however, that the reference is only valid to the case involved, namely, those citizens of a foreign state who emigrate in evasion or omission of military service and acquire another status by naturalization. As to such persons the doctrine of dual allegiance equally subsisting toward the country of origin and the country of adoption, and necessarily regulated by a treaty of naturalization, may be applied as an academic proposition; but in point of fact the claim is not pressed, so far as known, by any state except Italy and Russia, unless the emigration shall have been at or near the military age and constitute of itself an evasive violation of the law of origin. "It is observable that throughout the note of the Swiss Federal Council the right of renunciation of citizenship is spoken of as pertaining to the individual, provided it be declared in the prescribed forms of the law of July 3, 1876. Although not recognizing the obligation of the native-born American son of an American citizen father to make the application of renunciation referred to, that procedure may afford a practical solution to a position which otherwise is and would remain intolerable as between two sovereign states. Mr. Sherman, Sec. of State, to Mr. Peak, min. to Switzerland, May 12, 1897, For. Rel. 1897, 566; MS. Inst. Switz. III. 71. The case was terminated by the acceptance by the Swiss Government, through the department of justice of the canton of Zurich, of a formal application which Mr. Schneider had made for release from Swiss citizenship. (For. Rel. 1897, 568, 569.) In response to an inquiry whether a passport should be refused to a-native-born Swiss who returned to the country of his origin after acquiring American citizenship, unless he could show that he had “formally renounced his Swiss citizenship in the manner prescribed by Swiss law," the Department of State said: "The laws of the United States do not require the consent of the Government of the alien's origin or a compliance with the laws of such country relative to renunciation of allegiance as a prerequisite to naturalization here. You would, therefore, not be justified in making it a condition to the issuance of a passport that the applicant shall show that he has form ally renounced Swiss citizenship in the manner prescribed by Swiss law." In connection with this subject the legation raised the question whether a Swiss, in obtaining naturalization in the United States, could, without false swearing, renounce his allegiance to the land of his birth and be considered a bona fide citizen of the United States, so long as he conserved his Swiss citizenship, which he well knew that he could not lose, except by his own formal renunciation of it. The Department of State replied: "This is, in effect, Can a person who obtains his certificate of naturalization by fraud be considered a bona fide citizen of the United States? Naturalization being a judicial act, there is no authority on the part of the executive to declare that a naturalized citizen of the United States is not a citizen because of fraud in the procurement of his citizenship. That can only be determined judicially by a competent court of the United States. But this does not interfere with the exercise of the discretionary power vested in the Secretary of State in the matter of granting passports and protecting American citizens abroad, and the Department's standing rule is to withhold a passport from any holder of naturalization papers found to have been obtained by fraud." Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Leishman, min. to Switzerland, Dec. 12, 1899. For. Rel. 1899, 764. “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. "Every Swiss citizen is liable under Swiss law, to military service from the beginning of the year in which he becomes 20 years of age until the end of the year when he becomes 44. Every Swiss of mili tary age who does not perform military service is subject to an annual tax, whether he resides in the Confederation or not, or to punishment for nonpayment of the tax if he returns to Switzerland. 66 If a Swiss citizen renounces Swiss allegiance in the manner prescribed by the Swiss law of July 3, 1876, and his renunciation is accepted, his naturalization in another country is recognized, but without such acceptance it is not recognized, and is held to descend from generation to generation. "Before he returns to Switzerland an American citizen of Swiss origin should file with the cantonal authorities his written declaration of renunciation of his rights to communal, cantonal, and in general Swiss citizenship, with documents showing that he has obtained foreign citizenship for himself, wife, and minor children, and receive the sealed document of release from Swiss citizenship through the direction of justice of the canton of his origin. If he neglects this and is within the ages when military service may be required, he is liable to military tax, or to arrest and punishment in case of nonpayment of the tax." Circular notice, Department of State, Washington, Jan. 8, 1901, For. Rel. As to military service in Switzerland, see Mr. Broadhead, min. to (c) FUTILE CONVENTIONAL NEGOTIATIONS. $458. "The United States of America proclaims and practices the principle that an American citizen can not belong to another nationality, and therefore, one wishing to obtain American citizenship must abjure his former nationality. From this has arisen in the international relations of that Republic with other countries, serious conflicts in regard to the state or home right, and a constant danger of resulting in Heimatlosigkeit, homeless people. . . To correct these inconveniences the United States have repeatedly proposed to Switzerland the remedy employed by other states, the conclusion of a convention. But so far the Federal Council has been of the opinion that these overtures could not be entertained. This they have been impelled to in view of article 44 of the Federal Constitution, which prescribes that no canton shall deprive a citizen of his Swiss citizenship; and in view of the positive Swiss States right, according to which a Switzer can only by his own free act renounce his Swiss nationality, there was no power to change these principles by a treaty." Report of a special commission to the Swiss Federal Assembly, 1887, For. Acting on a report made by the American legation at Berne, August 12, November 7, 1882, Mr. Cramer submitted a draft of a convention to the In his No. 161, August 2, 1884. Mr. Cramer again adverted to the subject, |