While, by Art. IX. of the treaty of peace between the United States and Spain, Dec. 10, 1898, it was declared that Congress should determine the civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the territories ceded to the United States, nothing was said as to the status of the native inhabitants of Cuba, which was to be occupied by the United States only provisionally. As Spain relinquished her sovereignty over the island, such inhabitants ceased to be subjects of Spain, but they did not immediately gain another definite status. Under these circumstances it was held that during the American occupation they might, while "temporarily sojourning" in a foreign country, be" protected through the exercise of good offices by the representatives of the United States in case of need upon due establishment of their nativity and of their merely temporary absence from Cuba and intention to return to and permanently reside in that island.” The diplomatic and consular officers of the United States were therefore authorized to register in their offices the names of native inhabitants of Cuba who might be temporarily sojourning within their jurisdiction, and to exercise their good offices for such as might seek protection for well-established cause, it appearing that they had not lost the quality of native inhabitants of Cuba by naturalization in any other country or by assuming therein obligations inconsistent. with their original allegiance.

Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to the diplomatic and consular officers of the
United States, circular, May 2, 1899, For. Rel. 1900, 894.

This circular applied to Cubans in Spain. (Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr.
Storer, min. to Spain, No. 182, June 4, 1900, 23 MS. Inst. Spain, 28.)
The statutes of the United States permit, but do not require, American
consuls to administer oaths, take acknowledgments, and do other
notarial acts for the "legalization" of documents; but it was not
competent for the Government of the United States, by order or dec-
laration, to require documents drawn in foreign countries for use in
Cuba to be legalized before an American diplomatic or consular repre-
sentative. (Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Sec. of War, March 16, 1899,
235 MS. Dom. Let. 490.)

The circular of May 2, 1899, did not apply to minor children who, although
they were natives of Cuba, resided with their parents in Spain, where
the latter were apparently domiciled. (Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State,
to Mr. Storer, No. 51, Aug. 12, 1899, 22 MS. Inst. Spain, 607. See also,
Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Storer, min. to Spain, No. 54,
Aug. 18, 1899, 22 MS. Inst. Spain, 609, enclosing copy of Department's
No. 16, Aug. 18, 1899, to Mr. Lay, consul-general at Barcelona, in
reply to the latter's No. 18 bis, July 26, 1899.)
Moreover, the circular, as its title indicates, was intended to cover only
mative inhabitants of the territory ceded or relinquished. So far as
concerned children born abroad to natives of Cuba prior to April 11,
1899, the date of the exchange of ratifications of the treaty of peace,
it was intimated that they "might very justly be held to be Spanish
subjects," while it "might be proper to extend the provisions of the
circular so as to include children of native Cubans born abroad after

April 11, 1899; but the Department was of opinion that, instead of enlarging the terms of the circular, “ it would be more prudent to take up and decide in each individual case whether the person is entitled to protection." (Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Sec. of War, Dec. 28, 1900, 250 MS. Dom. Let. 13.)

An inquiry having been made in May, 1900, as to what steps, if any, could be taken by a citizen and resident of Venezuela to preserve the original or the Cuban nationality of a child, a native of Cuba, whom he had adopted eight years previously, the Department of State replied that the question would be "one for the determination of the Cuban authorities when a definitive government shall be established in Cuba."

Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to M. Loomis, min. to Venezuela, June 8, 1900,
For. Rel. 1900, 954.

The capture of Charleston, S. C., by the British forces in May, 1780, did
not permanently change the allegiance or the national character of
the inhabitants. (Shanks r. Dupont, 3 Pet. 242.)

In reply to an inquiry whether in case of "trouble" in Caracas Cubans might hoist the United States flag for protection, the Department of State said: "Flag should only be shown by citizens. You may notify authorities of any menaced Cuban property and use good offices for them."

Mr. Adee, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Russell, chargé at Caracas, tel.,
Sept. 19, 1899, For. Rel. 1899, 796.

Benito Llaveria y Pascual was born in Havana, Cuba, June 24, 1875, his parents being natives of the province of Tarragona. In 1895 he went to Barcelona, Spain, where his father had resided for three years. In March, 1898, he was conscripted. He applied for exemption, on the ground that he and his father were only temporarily residing in Barcelona. This application was denied; and it was held, besides, that he had incurred certain penalties by his failure previously to be enrolled on first becoming liable to service. He failed, however, to report, and on April 1, 1898, returned to Havana. In June, 1899, he returned to Spain, bearing a Cuban passport issued by the United States military authorities and a certificate of identity and residence issued by the municipal authorities of Havana; and with these papers he was registered in the United States consulategeneral at Barcelona as a Cuban citizen. In January, 1901, he was again drawn for duty, and his petition for exemption was rejected, the military authorities holding that, even assuming that he had lost his Spanish nationality, he was obliged to fulfill the obligation of service previously incurred. This conclusion appearing to be in accordance with the Spanish law, it was accepted by the United States.

Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Storer, min. to Spain, April 8 and June 4,
1901, For. Rel. 1901, 469, 470.

In the instruction of April 8, Mr. Hay said: "If, under the Spanish law,
Mr. Llaveria was liable to military service when he was enrolled
in March, 1898, the Department is inclined to think that the Spanish
view is correct. A subsequent change of nationality would not oper-
ate to discharge the obligation. You may examine this question. The
Department's circular of May 2, 1899, only authorizes our diplomatic
and consular officers to exercise good offices for the protection of
'native inhabitants of Cuba temporarily residing abroad.' The
consul at Barcelona has protested against the action of the Spanish
authorities in this case. The Department will therefore take no
further action on it until it shall have received a report from you
on the point above referred to." (For. Rel. 1901, 469.)
Mr. Storer having reported that the conclusion of the military author-
ities appeared to be in conformity with the Spanish law, Mr. Hay,
in his instruction of June 4, said: "You state that you have reached
the conclusion that Mr. Benito Llaveria Pascual was by Spanish
law domiciled in Barcelona at the time of his enrollment for the
army in 1898; that he was of proper age to be enrolled, and that his
failure to present himself for such purpose places him entirely
under the penal sections cited by the commission. You add that
you have advised the United States consul-general at Barcelona
of your conclusions. In reply I have to say that the Department
approves your action." (For. Rel. 1901, 470.)

Congress having declared by resolution that the people of the island of Cuba "are and of right ought to be free and independent," and the status of the island in this regard not having been changed by the treaty with Spain of December 10, 1898, a citizen of Cuba is a citizen of a foreign state, within the act of Congress of 1887 giving the circuit court of the United States jurisdiction of controversies "between citizens of a State and foreign states, citizens, or subjects."

Betancourt . Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association, 101 Fed. Rep. 305.

III. NATURALIZATION.

1. LEGISLATIVE AND CONVENTIONAL REGULATION.

§ 377.

Beginning with the act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103, Congress, in the exercise of its power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, has passed various statutes for the admission of aliens to citizenship of the United States. References to these statutes are given below. Recommendations for their amendment have from time to time been made. See, in this relation, the report of Messrs. Purdy, Hunt, and Campbell to the President, under Executive order of March 1, 1905, on the subject of naturalization and needed amendments of the law. (H. Doc. 46, 59 Cong. 1 sess.)

Naturalization has also been regulated to some extent by treaty. The United States has concluded treaties on the subject with the following countries: North German Union, Feb. 22, 1868; Bavaria, May 26, 1868; Baden, July 19, 1868; Hesse, Aug. 1, 1868; Belgium, Nov. 16, 1868; Sweden and Norway, May 26, 1869; Great Britain, May 13, 1870; Austria-Hungary, Sept. 20, 1870; Ecuador, May 6, 1872; Denmark, July 20, 1872; Hayti, March 22, 1902.

Although a fraudulent certificate of naturalization may be taken up by a diplomatic representative of the United States and sent to the Department of State, yet the record of the court in which the fraudulent naturalization occurred remains, and duplicate certificates are readily obtainable . . . I earnestly recommend further legislation to punish fraudulent naturalization and to secure the ready cancellation of the record of every naturalization made in fraud.”

President Grant, annual message, Dec. 7. 1874, For. Rel. 1874, xi.

The revision of the naturalization laws, especially so as to prevent frauds, is strongly recommended by President Roosevelt in his annual message of Dec. 6, 1904.

See, also, his special message of Dec. 5, 1905, transmitting to Congress the report of the Commission on Naturalization (Messrs. Purdy, Hunt, and Campbell) of Nov. 8, 1905, with drafts of bills on the subject. (H. Doc. 46, 59 Cong. 1 sess.)

"The numbers of persons of foreign birth seeking a home in the United States, the ease and facility with which the honest emigrant may after the lapse of a reasonable time become possessed of all the privileges of citizenship of the United States, and the frequent occasions which induce such adopted citizens to return to the country of their birth, render the subject of naturalization and the safeguards which experience has proved necessary for the protection of the honest naturalized citizen of paramount importance. The very simplicity in the requirements of law on this question affords opportunity for fraud, and the want of uniformity in the proceedings and records of the various courts, and in the forms of the certificates of naturalization issued, affords a constant source of difficulty.

"I suggest no additional requirements to the acquisition of citizenship beyond those now existing, but I invite the earnest attention of Congress to the necessity and wisdom of some provisions regarding uniformity in the records and certificates, and providing against the frauds which frequently take place, and for the vacating of a record of naturalization obtained in fraud.

"These provisions are needed in aid and for the protection of the honest citizen of foreign birth, and for the want of which he is made to suffer not infrequently. The United States has insisted upon the right of expatriation, and has obtained after a long struggle an

admission of the principle contended for by acquiescence therein on the part of many foreign powers and by the conclusion of treaties on that subject. It is, however, but justice to the government to which such naturalized citizens have formerly owed allegiance, as well as to the United States, that certain fixed and definite rules should be adopted governing such cases and providing how expatriation may be accomplished.

"While emigrants in large numbers become citizens of the United States, it is also true that persons, both native-born and naturalized, once citizens of the United States, either by formal acts or as the effect of a series of facts and circumstances, abandon their citizenship and cease to be entitled to the protection of the United States, but continue on convenient occasions to assert a claim to protection in the absence of provisions on these questions."

President Grant, annual message, Dec. 5, 1876, For. Rel. 1876, ix.

"Our existing naturalization laws also need revision. Those sections relating to persons residing within the limits of the United States in 1795 and 1798 have now only a historical interest. Section 2172, recognizing the citizenship of the children of naturalized parents, is ambiguous in its terms and partly obsolete. There are special provisions of law favoring the naturalization of those who serve in the Army or in merchant vessels, while no similar privileges are granted those who serve in the Navy or the Marine Corps.

"An uniform rule of naturalization,' such as the Constitution contemplates, should, among other things, clearly define the status of persons born within the United States subject to a foreign power (section 1992) and of minor children of fathers who have declared their intention to become citizens but have failed to perfect their naturalization. It might be wise to provide for a central bureau of registry, wherein should be filed authenticated transcripts of every record of naturalization in the several Federal and State courts, and to make provision also for the vacation or cancellation of such record in cases where fraud had been practiced upon the court by the applicant himself or where he had renounced or forfeited his acquired citizenship. A just and uniform law in this respect would strengthen the hands of the Government in protecting its citizens abroad, and would pave the way for the conclusion of treaties of naturalization with foreign countries."

President Arthur, annual message, Dec. 1, 1884, For. Rel. 1884, x.

"The inadequacy of existing legislation touching citizenship and naturalization demands your consideration. While recognizing the right of expatriation, no statutory provision exists providing means