citizens of the United States, have a dual nationality; and that, while in Colombia, their Colombian nationality must prevail. In accordance with this principle therefore, and until instructed otherwise by the Department, I shall, if applied to, grant passports to such persons; but with the express caution that such passport will not necessarily confer the right to protection by the United States Government, as against that of Colombia, while the holder remains in Colombia." (For. Rel. 1885, 204.) France. V. applied to the American legation in Paris, in 1883, for a certificate or attestation that he had preserved his American nationality. He was born at Bordeaux, France, in 1862. His father, however, who also was a native of France, had lived in the United States 35 years, and in 1853 was naturalized, but in 1859 returned to France, where in 1874 he died. V. had never been in the United States, and expressed no intention of going there to reside, but stated that he had property interests which might render it necessary for him to visit the United States at some future time. Held, that V. was not entitled to a passport-the usual form of attestation of American nationality to foreign governments. Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Morton, min. to France, Nov. 9, 1883, For. Rel. 1883, 285. "In 1873 the son of John Peppin, a Frenchman by birth, invoked the protection of this Government against the operation of French military law. The circumstances of his case were these: Peppin, when a young man, emigrated to the United States, was educated in Kentucky, became a citizen of the United States, resided in New Orleans several years, returned to France, married a French woman, and remained in France until his death. Some eight years after his return to France two children were born to him, one of them the son in question, who at the time of his application was eighteen years old. Protection in this case was refused by my predecessor, Mr. Fish." Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Lowell, min. to England, Feb. 27, 1884, For. Rel. 1884, 216, 218. By the French law of December 16, 1874, amending article 1 of the law of February 7, 1851, "any individual born in France of a foreigner who himself was born there is French, unless, in the year following the time of his majority, as fixed by French rule, he claims his foreign nationality by a declaration made either before the municipal authorities of the place of his birth or before the diplomatic or consular agents of France abroad, and establishes that he has maintained his original nationality by an attestation in due form of his government, which will remain affixed to the declaration." By this law a man born in France of a father who was himself born there, but who had become by naturalization a foreigner, is considered a French citizen unless, before he reaches the age of twenty-two, he establishes in the prescribed manner his retention of his original nationality, that is to say, the acquired nationality of his father. The law of 1874, as above quoted, requires the individual to prove that he has maintained his original nationality by an attestation in due form of his government;" but the circular issued by the French mayors to the sons and grandsons of foreigners born in France states that each one of them must produce a certificate of the diplomatic agent of the country of which he claims to be a citizen to the effect that he has not lost his original nationality. Mr. Vignaud, chargé at Paris, to Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, June 15, 1886, For. Rel. 1886, 301. But by the law of 1889, as amended by the law of 1893, “any person born in France of foreign parents, one of whom was also born there, is French, except that in the year following his majority he may disclaim his French status, by complying with the requirements of paragraph 4, if it is the mother who was born in France." (Mr. Vignaud, chargé, to Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, No. 47, Aug. 22, 1893, and enclosure, For. Rel. 1893, 303.) Children born abroad whose father was, at the time of their birth, a citizen of the United States, are, by virtue of the act of February 10, 1855, citizens of the United States, and within the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the United States are entitled to all the privileges of citizens. As to whether they are entitled, while continuing to reside abroad, to passports as American citizens, the answer must be more qualified. If, by the laws of the country of their birth, such children are subjects of its government, it is not competent by any legislation to interfere with that relation or with the allegiance which they owe to the country of their birth while they continue within its territory. If, therefore, they receive passports as citizens of the United States, such passports should be qualified with the statement that, although they are citizens of the United States, their rights as such are subject to the rights, obligations, and duties which may attach to them under the laws of the country in which they. were born and in which they continued to live. "The conclusions above stated, which I adopt, were affirmed explicitly by Mr. Frelinghuysen, in instructions to Mr. Kasson, January 15, 1885, (Foreign Relations, Germany, 1885), and impliedly by Mr. Frelinghuysen in instructions to Mr. Morton, November 9, 1883 (Foreign Relations, France)." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Vignaud, chargé at Paris, July 2, 1886, June 12, 1869, 13 Op. 89. H. Doc. 551-vol 3- -34 "If Karl Klingenmeyer's father [a native of Germany who dad been naturalized in the United States] was at the Germany. time of his son's birth a citizen of this country [the United States], the son was such a citizen, while possibly by the German law (which I have not at hand) he might also be a citizen of the place of his birth [Germany]. On general principles such conflicting citizenship is decided according to the laws of the one of the two countries claiming allegiance within whose jurisdiction the individual happens to be. (Vol. 13, Opinions Attorneys-General, p. 89.)" Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Kasson, min. to Germany, Jan. 15, 1885, For. Rel. 1885, 396, 398.. Mexico. "The two sons of Mr. Smith [a citizen of the United States who had been naturalized in Mexico], aged respectively seven and ten years at the time of their father's death, were undoubtedly American citizens by birth, inasmuch as the father's change of allegiance occurred after the birth of the youngest child. If within the jurisdiction of the United States, their right to American citizenship would be unimpaired, and even if within Mexican jurisdiction during minority, they would, in the absence of any Mexican law specifically attaching the altered status of the father to his minor children within Mexican jurisdiction, be still properly regarded as American citizens. But if there be such a law, or if on attaining majority they remain in Mexico and come within any provision of Mexican law making them citizens of that Republic, they could not be regarded as citizens of the United States. "The registration of the younger son, by the widowed mother, after the death of the father, although irregularly and unnecessarily delayed, is in contravention of no rule, the child's citizenship at birth being clear." Mr. F. W. Seward, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Foster, min. to Mexico, As the Mexican law "does not make such a minor [i. e., a child born in See, also, Mr. F. W. Seward, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Noyes, No. 115, Russia. "The Russian naturalization law of March 6, 1864, A. 12, provides: Children born of foreigners not Russian subjects, born and educated in Russia, or, if born abroad, yet who have completed their education in a Russian upper or middle school, will be admitted to Russian allegiance should they desire to do so within the succeeding year after they shall have attained their majority.' "This provision appears to be permissive, not compulsory, and to contemplate that persons born in Russia of alien parents, may, under certain specified circumstances, make election of Russian citizenship, and thereupon be admitted to such citizenship by some formal act of naturalization. "The precedents you have examined would seem to have led you into the misapprehension that the theory of dual allegiance during minority is involved, requiring formal option between two conflicting claims.. This is, indeed, the case according to the municipal law of certain countries. "The French rule is typical, and under it a person born in France of alien parents and domiciled in France at the time of reaching majority, is allowed one year after attaining majority to elect to retain the citizenship of his parents. In default of so doing at the expiration of that period, and if retaining French domicil, he is to be deemed a citizen of France.' (Foreign Relations, 1891, pp. 493, 494.) "The contrast between the two rules is clear. In France, upon the expiration of the probationary year following majority, the domiciled alien loses his right to elect the status of his parents. In Russia, as explained to you by the Russian minister, if the election of Russian citizenship be not availed of within the prescribed year, the person loses his right to become a Russian subject. "The law of the United States does not, as you seem to suppose, provide for option of American citizenship by persons situated as you represent the Powers brothers to be circumstanced. By section 1993 of the Revised Statutes the children born abroad to citizens of the United States are declared to be citizens,' with the sole exception that such citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States. The precedents you quote contemplate recognition of a formal option, only in the cases where a conflict of laws arises under the legislation of the foreign country of birth and sojourn. In Russia, however, it appears that such conflict does not arise, and that in the event of not acquiring Russian status in the permitted way, the persons in question will be regarded after attaining majority as lawful citizens of the United States." Mr. Adee, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Coombs, min. to Japan, April 28, 1893, For. Rel. 1893, 401. Mr. Coombs, in a dispatch of March 21, 1893, to which Mr. Adee's instruction is a reply, pointed out, as the result of a consultation with his Russian colleague, an error in the translation of the foregoing pro 1 vision of the Russian law, as printed in the Report of the British Royal Commission of 1869 on Naturalization and Allegiance, and reprinted in For. Rel. 1873, II. 1288. (For. Rel. 1893, 393.) 2. NATIVE-BORN CHILDREN. (1) DOUBLE ALLEGIANCE BY BIRTH. § 428. An application having been made for a passport for a youth of seventeen, whose father desired to send him to Germany as a student, the Department of State said: "The young man referred to, under the Constitution of the United States, having been born in this country, is, while subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, a citizen of the United States notwithstanding the fact of his father being an alien. As such citizen he is entitled to a passport. This, of course, would be a sufficient protection to him in every other country but that of his father's origin-Germany. There, of course, as the son of a German subject, it may be claimed that he is subject to German military law, and that, not being then subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, he can not claim the rights secured to him by the 14th amendment to the Constitution. It is proper, therefore, that I should add, in the interest of young Mr. J- that it will be perilous for him to visit Germany at present." Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. O'Neill, M. C., Aug. 8, 1882, 143 See, to the same effect, Mr. Hunter, Second Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. In Sept., 1878, M. S., the wife of J. A., of the canton of Luzerne, Switzerland, came to the United States with Joseph H., also a Switzer. In April, 1879, she gave birth to a son, who was baptized as the son of Joseph H. Meanwhile, divorce proceedings were instituted in Switzerland by J. A., who obtained a decree of divorce from M. S., in contumaciam, shortly after the birth of the son. In August, 1880, M. S. died, and Joseph II. took the child to his home, in the canton of Aargau, Switzerland. The Swiss Federal Council held that the child was a citizen of Luzerne, presumably because it was born before the decree of divorce was granted. The canton of Luzerne, however, suggested that the child was a citizen of the United States, and the question was referred to the American legation, with a view to the issuance of a passport to the child as an American citizen. The legation declined to issue a passport, and its action was approved. Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cramer, No. 36, June 4, 1883. |