mission under the treaty between the United States and Mexico of 1839. For the history of the commission, see Moore, Int. Arbitrations, II. 1220–1232. Enlistment in the military or naval service of a foreign power is not of itself a renunciation of American citizenship. Mr. Hunter, Second Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Green, consul at Cordoba, "It appears that, after lending important services to the republicans of Mexico during the French intervention and the Empire of Maximilian in 1866–267, Mr. Smith took active part in 1876 in the suc cessful revolutionary movement of General Diaz, became a colonel in the Mexican army, and was understood to be in such service at the time of his death, of which the date is given as June 5, 1879. "You further quote the provision of the Mexican law of January 30, 1856, enacting the naturalization, apparently without any additional formality beyond the fact of service, of a foreigner who 'accepts any public office of the nation, or belongs to the army or navy, and in view of this you ask in general terms for the views of the De partment upon the status of Americans accepting service under the Mexican Government, and also specific instructions on the points presented in Mr. Strother's letter to you of the 15th ultimo, a copy of which you transmit. "In answer to the first point presented by you, I may observe that on the 27th of July, 1868, Congress declared that the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." (Section 1999, Revised Statutes.) The act of changing allegiance and citizenship must necessarily conform to the laws of the country where the American who voluntarily expatriates himself becomes a citizen or subject. No law of the United States, for instance, can make a Mexican citizen out of one of our own citizens, or prevent him from becoming a Mexican citizen by the operation of Mexican law. Mr. Smith, by the act of voluntarily taking military service under the Government of Mexico while a law was in existence by which such an act on his part conferred and involved the assumption of Mexican citizenship, must be deemed to have understandingly conformed to that Mexican law, and of his own accord embraced Mexican citizenship. Under the enactment of Congress, previously quoted, no permission of the Government of the United States is necessary to the exercise of the right of expatriation." Mr. F. W. Seward, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Foster, min. to Mexico, Aug. 13, 1879, For. Rel. 1879, 824. To the inquiry whether an American citizen, by enlisting in the military service of a foreign prince, would lose his national character as a citizen of the United States, the following answer was made: "Volun tary enlistment in the military service of a nation is one of the highest proofs that a man can give of allegiance and fidelity to that power, and is always accepted as a renunciation of his former nationality unless such service is undertaken with the express permission of his own Government. In regard to your further inquiry as to how far this Government might be disposed to interfere in behalf of such person, were his life in danger as a captive to the enemy of the prince in whose service he was, the Department can not undertake to answer that question in advance of an actual case presented with all its attending facts and circumstances." (Mr. F. W. Seward, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Thomas, May 5, 1877, 118 MS. Dom. Let. 151.) "I have received your despatch No. 172, of the 28th ultimo, relative to the case of William Sherwell, an American citizen, who has applied to you for protection on account of cruelty and ill treatment which he has suffered at the hands of local authorities at Orizana, State of Vera Cruz, where he resides. 66 I desire to approve your unofficial presentation of the case to Mr. Mariscal, and your intimation to him that the United States could not accept his theory that because Mr. Sherwell had served in the Mexican army he had thereby placed himself beyond the pale of United States protection. . You will find not only a mass of unpublished correspondence in the archives of your legation showing this Government's position under such circumstances, but the Foreign Relations of 1882, 1883, 1884, 1885, and 1887 may also be profitably consulted in this respect. "This Government maintains that naturalization is a voluntary act, not to be imputed or determined by construction, but to be affirmatively performed by the individual. While it does not deny that a citizen may voluntarily divest himself of his allegiance and acquire a new one, and while it also recognizes that there are certain specific acts which he may perform in a foreign state, and which in themselves are tantamount to a voluntary and open renunciation of his former nationality or allegiance, yet manifestly the allegation of the Mexican Government in Mr. Sherwell's case is not of this nature. A foreign municipal law can not divest an American citizen ipso facto of his allegiance on the ground of his having performed duty in the military service of an alien state, or of having acquired title to real estate under the laws of such state, or of being employed by a chartered corporation thereof. Besides these generally recognized principles of international usage, there are historical precedents which emphasize the position of this Government in respect of its citizens temporarily abroad. "As evidence of this it may be stated that entering the military service of a foreign state is by itself in no sense an abjuration of prior nationality. In our Revolutionary war over six thousand Frenchmen were enlisted in our armies, either in our marine forces naturalization, it must be obvious that the obligations of the United States to protect and defend the interests of such a person, in controversies originating in foreign countries, and against the rights of their jurisdiction, can not be supposed to bind them to the same extent at which it might be proper to interpose in behalf of our resident or native citizens. Whatever imperfections may be supposed to exist in the modes of administering justice at Tunis, a merchant who, in the exercise of his own discretion, engages in commercial speculations there must be prepared to take the chances of arbitrary decision to which they are liable, nor is it consistent with any principle of natural or national law, that a country, with which a merchant has no other relation than that of his having once obtained an act of natu ralization from its records, should be involved in contest and perhaps entangled in war with another nation for the settlement to his satisfaction of his private transactions of trade." Mr. John Quincy Adams, Sec. of State, to Mr. Shaler, consul-general to "After his naturalization here, if indeed he was naturalized. he returned to his native country to reside (for Cuba is a part of Spain), went into public employment there, and reestablished his domicil. His native allegiance may therefore be considered as having reverted. Spain could well claim him as one of her subjects, and treat him as such, without the United States being in a condition, if they had the disposition, to question her right to do so." Mr. Marey, Sec. of State, to Mr. Gadsden, min. to Mexico, No. 54, Oct. 22, 1855, MS. Inst. Mexico, XVII. 54. Mr. Webster states: 'It can admit of no doubt that the natu ralization laws of the United States contemplate the residence in the country of naturalized citizens, unless they shall go abroad in the public service or for temporary purposes. In this opinion I fully concur.“ Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Marsh, min. to Italy, Jan. 21, 1863, MS. Inst. Italy, I. 171, referring to the return of naturalized American citizens of Italian origin to their native country "with the evident intention of taking up their abode" there. The passage quoted from Mr. Webster is in Mr. Webster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Porter, min. to Turkey, Aug. 26, 1842, MS. Inst. Turkey, I. 295. 66 If a Prussian subject after having been naturalized as an American citizen resumes his permanent residence in his native land we cannot deny that he also resumes his original allegiance and loses his quality of American citizen. If it is his intention permanently to reside in Prussia the obligations of a Prussian subject attach to him the moment he touches the Prussian territory. What the intention is must be gathered from facts." Mr. E. Peshine Smith, examiner of claims, to Mr. Hance, Jan. 21, 1867, 75 "Naturalization is intended for the benefit of those who have the intention of residing at present and not prospectively in the United States." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Redmond, April 3, 1869, 80 MS. Dom. Let., 530. "If Mr. Medina was ever a citizen, which appears to be doubtful from the records of this Department, he has lost his citizenship by accepting office from his native country. The passport cannot be renewed." Mr. J. C. B. Davis, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Weile, consul at Guayaquil, April 18, 1870, 57 MS. Desp. to Consuls, 300. "In respect to naturalized citizens of the United States, resident in Ecuador, but not natives of that country, who left this country under circumstances indicating that they obtained naturalization, not with a view to permanent residence here, but for the purpose of claiming the protection of this Government in foreign countries, the reasoning and the instructions contained in the circular of October 14, 1869, are applicable in a general sense. They have not, however, quite the same force and emphasis as in the case of naturalized citizens returning to the country of their native allegiance. There is not the same presumption that when they go to their native land it is with the intention of establishing an abiding domicil. Moreover, the Government under whose jurisdiction they dwell cannot claim, as in the other case, that they revert to their native allegiance, but can only claim that local and temporary allegiance which every one owes to the Government whose protection he enjoys." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Wing, Apr. 6, 1871, MS. Inst. Ecuador, Where the subject is not regulated by treaty, no distinction can be made, with respect to protection abroad, between naturalized and H. Doc. 551-vol 3-47 native-born citizens of the United States. The domiciliation of a naturalized citizen of the United States in his native country would not of itself deprive him of his right to the protection of this Government. Williams, At. Gen., 1873, 14 Op. 295. For discussion of the naturalization laws of the United States, see 1 "Continuous absence from this country does not necessarily presume expatriation. It has always been held to be consistent with a purpose of returning; and in the case of a natural-born citizen, or of a naturalized citizen, so residing in any country, except the country of his nativity, this Department would require its agents to extend the protection of the Government to all citizens, except in the pres ence of strong affirmative proof of a purpose of expatriation. But when a naturalized citizen returns to his native land to reside, the action of the treaty-making power above referred to would seem to require that such agents be jealous and scrutinizing when he seeks their intervention. Even in such case the purpose of not renouncing the adopted citizenship might be manifested and proved in various ways, such as the payment of an income tax when such a tax was imposed, the maintenance of a domicil, and the payment of taxes on personal property within the United States, or other affirmative action. "It is the duty of the diplomatic and consular agents of the United States to listen to all facts which may be produced tending to exclude the presumption of expatriation, and to give to them the weight to which in each case they may be entitled." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Washburne, min. to France, June 28, 1873, "I am of opinion that the entrance into the civil service of the country of his nativity by a naturalized citizen of the United States, who has returned to that country, and continues his residence there beyond the length of time at which, by convention between the two States, the intent not to return to the country of adoption may be held to exist, must be taken to be very strong evidence of the absence of intent to return,' and must raise a presumption, which might, and probably would, make it very difficult for the country of adoption to assert the continued citizenship of the party thus taking service and continuing to reside in the country of his nativity." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Müller, Jan. 28, 1874, 101 MS. Dom. Let. 222, A naturalized citizen of the United States can not be regarded as renouncing his United States citizenship merely because he returns to his native land. To sustain such renunciation, there must be either an |