In the case of a native of Turkey, who reentered his native land as a Turk and accepted a local passport as a Turkish subject, his course was declared to amount to "an act of voluntary repatriation by which he released himself from any further claim of the United States upon his allegiance, and renounced all claim to the protection of his Government." Mr. Adee, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Dickinson, No. 29, Sept. 3, 1898. 163 MS. Inst. Consuls, 508. The precise point of the instruction was the approval of the action of the consul-general at Constantinople in refusing to visa the individual's American passport. Ablahat Odishu Samuel resided in the United States from 1893 to 1896. From 1896 to 1899 he lived abroad. From 1899 to 1901 he again resided in the United States, and obtained a certificate of naturalization. He then returned to Persia, and was still residing there when, in January, 1904, he applied for an American passport, to include two children, who were born in Persia. The action of the American minister at Teheran in refusing to issue the passport was approved, on the strength of the provisions of the circular of March 27, 1899, with regard to loss of the right to protection through permanent residence abroad. The provisions of the same circular were also cited, to the effect that the natives of semibarbarous countries, or of countries in which the United States exercises extraterritorial jurisdiction, who have been naturalized in the United States, are subject to all the restrictions of the circular with regard to permanent foreign residence on returning to their country of origin. For. Rel. 1904, 656. For the circular of March 27, 1899, see infra, §§ 2. GERMAN TREATIES. $ 471. "3. If a German naturalized in America renews his residence in North Germany without intent to return to America, he shall be held to have renounced his naturalization in the United States. 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. The same provision applies to Würtemberg as to a Würtemberger,' to Hesse Darmstadt as to a Hessian naturalized in America but originally a citizen of the part of the Grand Duchy not included in the North German Confederation; to Bavaria as to a 'Bavarian,' but as to the latter power it is declared that the articleshall only have this meaning, that the adopted country of the emigrant can not prevent him from acquiring once more his former citizenship; but not that the state to which the emigrant originaliy belonged is bound to restore him at once to his original relation.' As to Baden, it is only provided that the emigrant from the one state who is to be held as a citizen of the other state, shall not on his return to his original country be constrained to resume his former citizenship; yet, if he shall, of his own accord, reacquire it and renounce the citizenship obtained by naturalization, such à renunciation is allowed, and no fixed period of residence shall be required for the recognition of his recovery of citizenship in his original country. "Here, again, we find great defects, which it is very desirable to have remedied. "(a) The provisions respecting residence in the old country and the reacquisition of citizenship are unequal, and in the case of Bavaria uncertain. "(b) Residence in other parts of Germany than that covered by the provisions of the particular treaty is inoperative to work a loss of the acquired citizenship, which is against the interests and the real intention of the United States and of Germany." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bancroft, min. to Germany, April 14, 1873, "As it regards recovering German citizenship by a German who has become naturalized in America, all the powers have thus far acted upon the same rules. It is agreed that a German who has once passed out of his connection with a German State cannot become again a German citizen without some express choice of his own, and without the consent of the government. "A. With regard to the reacquisition of citizenship the German States exercise only the same power which we exercise. We naturalize Germans after a short residence, if they serve in the Army or Navy, but that binds us only, and so it is with the German States. "B. So long as Bavaria, Würtemberg, and the rest were independent powers, the residence of a naturalized American there had just the same effect as if he had resided in Belgium or Holland. Now that they form part of the German Empire, no case has come, or is likely to come up, that involves the question whether the union brings with it a change in this respect. In practice it would be as easy to pass, for example, from Baden to Switzerland, as from Baden to Würtemberg; and so of the other powers, if the evasion of the treaty which is suggested is desired. So this point will never be of practical importance. I cannot see how American interests are thereby exposed to injury; because America, like Germany, always retains the power for itself to decide what length of absence, if any, shall forfeit American citizenship." Mr. Bancroft, min. to Germany, to Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, May 8, 1873, to be derived from silence or from want of a general statement of intention to return. However this may be, it would appear that any person applying for a passport may fairly be required to comply with such proper regulations as have been adopted by the legation, and to make such preliminary statements as are demanded in all cases." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Davis, min. to Germany, Nov. 1, 1876, MS. "A returned naturalized citizen would be regarded by me during the period of two years' residence in Germany, his original country, as standing on the same footing in all respects as a native citizen of this country visiting Germany, and consequently as receiving the protective intervention of this Government as if he were a native. "When, however, the residence of a returned naturalized citizen was continued in Germany beyond the two years, the clause of the treaty which permits the German Government to treat such residence as a renunciation of his naturalization in the United States would take effect upon him. Thereafter this Government would regard protective intervention in his behalf not as a matter of course, but as requiring special considerations to make it proper to insist upon his American citizenship notwithstanding his prolonged residence in his native country had exposed him to the operation of this clause of the treaty. A mere reading of the clause of the treaty will, I think, show this distinction to be necessary." Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Luxon, Nov. 21, 1878, 125 MS. Dom. Let. 362. "While the intent to remain in the country of birth may be held to exist after two years' continuous residence, it is in reality not so held without special circumstances showing either an intent to remain permanently or the absence of all intent to return to the United States." Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Williams, of House Committee on For eign Relations, Feb. 5, 1879, 13 MS. Report Book, 310. Under the treaty of Feb. 22, 1868, "the obligation of this Government to protect you, after your return to Germany, will continue only so long as you retain in good faith an intention to return to the United States to enjoy the rights, bear the burdens, and perform the duties of an American citizen. If, as your letter intimates, you go with the intention of not returning, your exposure to be conSidered a German citizen will date from your arrival in Germany." Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dietz, March 25, 1880, 132 MS. Dom. With reference to the question whether, under the Bancroft treaties and similar conventions, a naturalized citizen who, by permanent return to the country of his origin, renounces his naturalization, is held to have resumed his original nationality, the following correspondence may be noted: A question having arisen in 1884 with regard to the legal status of the American-born sons of Germans who, after naturalization in the United States, returned during the minority of such sons to Germany, bringing their children with them, and established there a permanent residence, the German foreign office said: "As regards the fathers of such sons, no doubt can exist that they are to be regarded as having renounced their naturalization by a longer sojourn than one or two years, pursuant to the treaties regulating nationality of 1868, concluded with the United States." With reference to this statement, Mr. Frelinghuysen, as Secretary of State, said: “We think it clear that the treaty can not of itself convert an American citizen back again to a German, any more than it can make a German a citizen of the United States. There are, it is believed, many persons now in Germany whose sojourn has extended beyond the term of two years without their being called upon to resume German allegiance." Replying to this statement, Count Hatzfeldt disclaimed, on the part of his Government," the really untenable assumption" that the naturalization treaties, in providing for the implied renunciation of naturalization, could have "the effect of restoring at the same time the former nationality." The German Government was, he declared, rather of opinion that the persons who fell within the conditions of Article IV. of the naturalization treaties with the United States were "to be reckoned neither as American citizens nor as subjects of the Empire, but as individuals without nationality," who were, however, subject to military duty under section 11 of the imperial military law of May 2, 1874. German foreign office to Mr. Kasson, American min., Dec. 31, 1884, For. With reference to Mr. Frelinghuysen's instruction and Count Hatz- "There can be no stronger, no clearer manifestation of intent against the animus revertendi than a man's own declaration followed by the establishment of a permanent domicile in the new country of his choice, and the entry into business there, and remaining in that newly chosen country until his death, over twenty-one years later. It is also a resumption of his original nationality and native allegiance. That is a question in regard to which either the United States or Germany may insist upon its own view of, as it may be held respectively by either Government. "It is not materially essential to the determination of the present question, but as is stated by Attorney-General Hoar in the case cited above (Vol. 13, Opinions of Attorneys-General, page 90), is usually determined by the country, claiming affirmatively, when the man is found within that jurisdiction." Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Kasson, min. to Germany, January 15, 1885, For. Rel. 1885, 396, 398. Henry Joseph Revermann, a native of Germany, emigrated to the United States in 1850. He was naturalized in 1856 in Illinois, and continued to reside there till 1871, when he returned to Germany, taking with him a passport for himself and his family as American citizens. Among his family was a son named Ferdinand, who was born in Illinois in 1860, four years after his father's naturalization. After their return to Germany the Revermanns settled at Münster, in Westphalia, where Ferdinand's name was placed on the military rolls. In 1880 his name was stricken from the rolls on the ground that he was born a citizen of the United States. In October, 1884, however, he was informed that by order of the Royal Government at Münster he must either become naturalized in Germany or leave the country. He remonstrated against this action, but the authori ties declined to modify the order. He then appealed to the legation of the United States at Berlin, and on October 31, 1884, Mr. Kasson, then American minister, requested a suspension of action till an investigation might be made. In reply to Mr. Kasson, Dr. Busch, of the German foreign office, stated in a note of December 31, 1884, that investigation had shown that the statements made in respect to Revermann were correct, and that the circumstances were similar to those in the cases of George Weigand (Wiegand) and the brothers Oppenheimer, which were presented in the notes of July 6 and November 8, 1881. Prompted by those cases, the Government had, said Dr. Busch, made a close examination of the legal status "of the sons of those Germans who, as naturalized citizens of the United States of America, had during the minority of their sons, born in America, returned in their company to Germany to reside there permanently." As to the fathers, declared Dr. Busch, there could be no doubt that they were to be regarded as having renounced their naturalization "by a longer sojourn than one or two years, pursuant to the treaties regulating nationality of 1868, concluded with the United States; " but the German Government had no hesitation in recognizing the sons as American citizens. As such, they could |