(15) SPAIN. § 455. "Referring to your enquiry of January last, I have now to inform you that, according to a note of the Spanish minister of state, enclosed in despatch No. 270, from Madrid, the provisions of the following decree of Nov. 17, 1852 (art. 45), still apply to the case of a Spaniard who becomes naturalized, without complying with the law of military service, and returns to Spain in the character of foreigner, viz: 666 "A foreigner naturalized in Spain and a Spaniard naturalized in the territory of another power without the knowledge and authority of their respective governments, shall not be exempt from the obligations belonging to their original nationality, although the Spanish subject in other respects loses the quality of Spaniard in accordance with the provisions of par. 5, art. 1 of the Constitution of the Monarchy.'" Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Blanco, Nov. 23, 1887, 166 MS. Dom. In a dispatch to Mr. Bayard, No. 241, Aug. 19, 1887, Mr. Strobel, chargé “In accordance with instructions, an official statement has been requested of the minister of foreign affairs of the laws of Spain now in force affecting the status or liabilities of former subjects, once owing military service, who have been naturalized in foreign countries, should such persons visit their native country.' "It may not be improper in the meantime to give what my own exam- “Article I. of the constitution of 1876, now in force, says: The quality "It seems, therefore, that a Spaniard naturalized in a foreign country "I have assumed that the words, once owing military service' in the instructions referred to, mean simply liability' and not actually drafted.' "In the latter case, the question of desertion or criminality under martial law might arise." (For. Rel. 1887, 998.) As a matter of fact, Spain habitually recognized, in Cuba, the full effect For an exhaustive examination of the law of Spain, see Moore, Int. See, also, Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Fairchild, min. to Spain, (16) SWITZERLAND. (a) SWISS LAW OF 1876. § 456. By article 6 of the Swiss Federal law of July 3, 1876, concerning the acquisition and renunciation of Swiss citizenship, a Swiss citizen may renounce his citizenship if (1) he has no domicil in Switzerland; (2) he is enjoying full civil rights under the laws of the country where he resides; (3) he has already acquired citizenship in another country, or the assurance of its being granted, for himself, his wife, and minor children, when they are domiciled or living with him. By article 7 the declaration of renunciation must be submitted in writing, accompanied with the required statements, to the cantonal government, which will notify the proper communal authorities, in order that notice may be given to any interested parties; and a term of four weeks is allowed for the presenting of objections. If objections are made, the decision upon them is rendered by the Federal Tribunal according to articles 61-63 of the law of June 27, 1874, in regard to the organization of the federal judiciary. By article 8, if the conditions prescribed in article 6 are fulfilled and no objections are presented, or if objections were made, but have been judicially overruled, then the authorities authorized for the purpose by cantonal law will pronounce the discharge from the cantonal and communal citizenship. This discharge includes the loss of Swiss citizenship, and takes effect from the date of its issue and delivery to the applicant; and it extends to the wife and minor children, when they are domiciled or living with the applicant, if no special exceptions were made with regard to them. By article 9 provision is made for the readmission to Swiss citizenship of persons who have lost it. Articles 1-5 of the law relate to Swiss naturalization. Article 5 declares "persons who, in addition to being Swiss citizens, are citizens of a foreign country, are not entitled to the privileges and the protection accorded to Swiss citizens during their residence in such foreign state." By article 10, all provisions of federal or cantonal legislation conflicting with the law of July 3, 1876, are abrogated. Mr. Rublee, chargé d'affaires to Switzerland, to Mr. Fish, Sec. of State. Aug. 31, 1876, enclosing a copy and translation of the law in question. (For. Rel. 1876, 567.) "I believe that the remedy [for difficulties growing out of the detention in Switzerland of the property of natives of the country who have been naturalized in the United States] would be best attained were every Swiss, immediately upon his naturalization in the United States, to comply, so far as within him lies, with the provisions of the Swiss federal law of July 3, 1876 (b) DIPLOMATIC DISCUSSIONS. § 457. "Your dispatch No. 218, of the 18th ultimo, has been received. It relates to the detention by the Swiss local authorities of property in Switzerland claimed by natives of that country naturalized in the United States. The reasons assigned for that detention are believed to be so insufficient practically, morally, and legally that it is hoped the Federal Government of that country will lose no time in applying its authority or influence towards redressing the grievance. "It is noticed with regret that the Swiss local authorities, at least, are disposed to maintain the doctrine of perpetual allegiance by denying the right of a native of that country to become naturalized elsewhere without their consent. "This pretension has always been regarded here as extravagant, and as such has been resisted, so that several of the most important European countries with monarchial governments, which were most strenuous in supporting it, have receded from their claims, and have concluded naturalization treaties with the United States. Switzerland as yet has no such treaty, but the convention of 1850 between the United States and that country contains stipulations which seem applicable to the present case and adequate for disposing of it contrary to the views held in that quarter. "It appears from your dispatch that one of the claims of the communal authorities is that they can recognize no native of Switzerland as a citizen of the United States who shall not have obtained their consent to his naturalization. This pretension is in direct conflict with the fourth article of the treaty, which says that in order to establish their character as citizens of the United States of America, persons belonging to that country shall be bearers of passports certifying their nationality. If, therefore, the nationality of any Swiss naturalized here, who may visit his native country with such passport, shall there be questioned, that act must be looked upon as a flagrant violation of the treaty, which could not be acquiesced in. "Again, the fifth article stipulates in substance that the heirs of a Swiss decedent, being citizens of the United States, whether native or naturalized, shall inherit and dispose of the property of such decedent at their pleasure. "An authenticated copy of the judgment of the court which may have naturalized a Swiss citizen must be regarded as conclusive proof of that act in regard to all such naturalized Swiss who may not visit their native country. "As explicit abjuration of allegiance to his native country is by law required of every foreigner naturalized here, the fact of such abjuration is mentioned in the record. It is presumed, therefore, that when a duly attested copy of such record is presented to the authorities in Switzerland, the sufficiency of the proof which it contains will be acknowledged without hesitation. "You intimate that the supreme court of the Confederation might decide the question conformably to the views entertained here, and suggest that a test case be prosecuted for the purpose of obtaining their opinion. This course it would be difficult and inconvenient for this Government to adopt, but it might be the most eligible for a claimant to sufficient property in that country to incur the hazard and expense which would attend it." Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Fish, min. to Switzerland, Nov. 12, 1879, Mr. Fish, in his No. 218, Oct. 18, 1879, to which the foregoing was a reply, "There is no law of the Canton of Zurich [on nationality and military service] referred to by Mr. Fish at p. 793, For. Rel. for 1879. What is referred to is the action of the communal and cantonal authorities in enforcing the federal law." (Mr. Broadhead, min. to Switzerland, to Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, No. 87, Aug. 16, 1895, 29 MS. Desp. Switz.) Albert Meyer was born in Zurich in 1842. He emigrated at the age of eighteen, and in 1864, when twenty-two years old, came to the United States and settled in the city of New York, where he entered into business as a merchant and continued to reside. In due time he became a naturalized citizen of the United States. Some years later the firm of which he was a member became embarrassed and granted certain preferences to creditors. A firm in Zurich instituted civil proceedings in New York to have these preferences set aside, but the court upheld them as lawful. Subsequently, the Swiss firm brought a criminal action against Mr. Meyer at Zurich, based on the same acts. The American legation at Berne was instructed, July 14, 1882, to bring the subject to the attention of the Swiss Government. In another instruction, December 19, 1882, the Department of State said: "While this Government does not for a moment question the right of that of Switzerland to attach such conditions as it may deem proper to the emigration of its citizens, and while it also admits that an American citizen who, while in Switzerland, commits an offense against the criminal laws of that country, may properly be held to answer for such offense before the courts of Switzerland, it cannot give its assent to a doctrine so fraught with danger to the rights of American citizens as that which holds that a citizen of the United States of Swiss nativity may be tried before the criminal courts of Switzerland for acts done or committed within the territories of the United States. That the matter for which Mr. Meyer was held criminally liable in Zurich, is not only not criminal in this country, but is authorized by its laws, simply aggravates this particular case. "Had his act constituted an offense against the criminal code of the United States or against the laws of the State of New York, this Government would still hold that he was amenable for such offense in the courts of the United States, or of the State of New York, as the case might be, and in these courts only. "The naturalization of an alien in the United States is the voluntary act of the party himself. Under the laws of the United States, the consent of the Government of the country of his origin is not made a condition of his admission to citizenship, and when he has once attained the character of a citizen of the United States, it is held by the Government and laws of the United States to adhere to him with its proper rights and privileges, not only within the United States, but in any foreign country in which he may be, not excepting the country of his nativity or origin." Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cramer, min. to Switzerland, July 28, 1883, Mr. Cramer was instructed to call the attention of the Swiss |