Page images
PDF
EPUB

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.

Rel. 1901, 424.

(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.

$ 153.

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.

Notes to Russ. Leg. VI. 221; Mr. Stoeckl to Mr. Seward, Dec. 28, 1867, and Sept. 14/26, 1868, 6 MS. Notes from Russ. Leg. ; Mr. Seward

to Mr. Stoeckl, Oct. 5, 1868, MS. Notes to Russ. Leg. VI. 263. In October, 1864, Bernard Bernstein, who was born in Russian Poland in

1823, and who emigrated to the United States in 1815 or 1846, owing military duty to Russia, was arrested in that country and imprisoned on a charge of having failed to perform military service. On the sixth day after his arrest he wrote to the Department of State, and the Department, Nov. 29, 1864, instructed the legation at St. Petersburg to take steps to secure his release. He was altogether discharged in March, 1865, in consideration, it was believed, of his American citizenship, which he acquired by naturalization in 1856. His actual imprisonment lasted only several days. The Department of State afterwards declined to make a claim for indemnity. (Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Messrs. Shorter & Brother, March 13, 1873. 98 MS. Dom. Let. 129, enclosing a copy of the Department's circular of May, 1871, containing information as to the system of military

conscription in various European countries.) Bernstein's case formed the subject of a report to Congress. (Message

of President Grant, Feb. 8, 1873, H. Ex. Doc. 197, 42 Cong. 3 sess.)

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.

It can

“ 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. not 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,

May 28, 1872, MS. Inst. Russia, XV. 327.
See, in a similar sense, Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Foster, min. to

Russia, Jan. 18, 1881, MS. Inst. Russia, XVI. 177; Mr. J. C. B. Davis,
Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Hoffman, chargé, Dec. 29, 1881, MS. Inst.
Russia, XVI. 256.

6

“ 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.

Dom. Let. 212. A native Russian, naturalized in the United States, being desirous to

return to his native country, the Department of State said: "As there is no naturalization treaty with Russia, you will be subject to the laws of that Empire within its jurisdiction. Your best course would be formally to petition the Czar for official leave to return." (Mr. F. W. Seward, Assistant Secretary of State, to Mr. Minger, Feb.

23, 1878, 122 MS. Dom. Let. 2.) In the absence of a treaty of naturalization between the United States

and Russia, the success of any attempt on the part of the United States to secure the release of a naturalized American citizen of Russian origin “from the natural operation of the laws of Russia

regarding the obligations of its native citizens,” in case he should place himself within Russian jurisdiction, “would be at least problematical.” (Mr. Hunter, Second Assistant Sec. of State, to Mr. Siler, Jan. 29, 1879, 126 MS. Dom, Let. 281.)

66

There being no naturalization treaty between the United States and Russia, “ the respective rights of the citizens of the two countries rest on international law and comity. I do not understand that a Russian, naturalized abroad and returning to Russia, is ipso facto claimed as a Russian. He may, in determinate cases, be held liable to military duty, or to punishment for non-fulfilment of service due when he emigrated. With regard to such cases the Department abstains from any opinion in advance of an actual instance presenting itself for consideration. If a case arises every possible step is taken to defend bona fide American citizenship.

Generally, however, a law-abiding naturalized Russian returning to Russia and there obeying the laws and justifying his American citizenship in good faith, goes unmolested during any reasonable period of sojourn unless actually liable to military duty or penalty.

"I can not undertake to say what is the Russian la: concerning estates falling to alien heirs. That is a personal matter, in regard to which Mr. Staub should seek competent legal advice.”

Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Randall, M. C., June 8, 1881, 137 MS.

Dom. Let. 667. “ Even in questions of citizenship affecting the interests of naturalized citizens of Russian origin, the good disposition of the Imperial Government has been on several occasions shown in a most exemplary manner; and I am sure the actual counselors of His Majesty cannot but contemplate with satisfaction the near approach made in 1874 to the arrangement of negotiations for a treaty of naturalization between the two countries. On that occasion, as will be seen by consulting Mr. Jewell's No. 62, of April 22, 1874, the only remaining obstacle lay in the statutes of the Empire touching the conferment and loss of citizenship, of which the examining commission and the consultative council of state recommended the modification in a sense compatible with the modern usage of nations."

Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Foster, min. to Russia, No. 87, July 29,

1881, For. Rel. 1881, 1030, 1034.

By the laws of Russia, a Russian subject who becomes naturalized abroad, and afterwards revisits his native country,“ is liable to prosecution for any offence which he may have previously committed against the laws of that Empire, including that of unlicensed naturalization in a foreign country.” If he has been naturalized in the United States, and, on voluntarily returning to Russia, is arrested on

H. Doc. 551-vol 3- -40

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »