Page images
PDF
EPUB

"When Mr. Bowler left this country and went to Hawaii does not appear, but on March 18, 1895, he voluntarily took an oath to support the constitution and laws of the Hawaiian Islands and bear true allegiance to the King, without expressly renouncing or reserving his allegiance to the United States. Section 432 of the statute prescribing this oath (Compiled Laws of Hawaii, 1884) provides that every foreigner so naturalized shall be deemed for all purposes a native of the islands, subject only to their laws, and entitled to their protection, and no longer amenable to his native sovereign while residing in the Kingdom, nor entitled to resort to his native country for protection or intervention; that for every such resort he shall be subjected to the penalties annexed to rebellion, and that, having been thus naturalized, he shall be entitled to all the rights and immunities of a Hawaiian subject. I am informed that the supreme court of Hawaii has held that the taking of this oath operates to naturalize the alien and admit him to full citizenship. It is not claimed that, since 1885, Mr. Bowler ever returned to the United States or resided elsewhere than on the islands.

"This Government has never held to the doctrine of perpetual allegiance; on the contrary, from its organization it has maintained that the right to throw off one's natural allegiance and assume another is inalienable.Expatriation,' said Attorney-General Black in 1859, includes not only emigration out of one's native country, but naturalization in the country adopted as a future residence.' The effect of naturalization is to place the adopted citizen in the same relation to the Government as native citizens or subjects. The right of the Hawaiian Government, with his consent, to adopt Mr. Bowler as fully as if he had been born upon its soil is as clear as his right to expatriate himself. He manifested his intention of abandoning his American citizenship by taking the oath to support the constitution and laws of Hawaii and bear true allegiance to the King, and, so far as is known, he manifested no contrary intention before his arrest. That oath is inconsistent with his allegiance to the United States. By taking it he obligated himself to support the Government of his adoption, even to the extent of fighting its battles in the event of war between it and the country of his origin. He could not bear true allegiance to both Governments at the same time.

"The President directs that you inform Mr. Bowler he is not entitled to the protection of the United States; that in similar cases you will be guided by the views herein expressed, and that you furnish the minister for foreign affairs with a copy of this instruction."

Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Willis, min. to Hawaii, April 5, 1895,
For. Rel. 1895, II. 853.

[ocr errors]

"Mr. Frank Godfrey, who claims to be an American citizen, has asked the intervention of our Government . . . There was

6

[ocr errors]

as

I said to him, doubt as to his right to claim protection. He has been a continuous resident of this city since March, 1879. He was a voter under the Monarchy, but claims that he declined several lucrative positions offered by King Kalakaua, on account of nondesire to expatriate himself.' He asserts that in 1887 and in 1891 he reported to the American legation for service, for which he was court-martialed in a local corps;' that in 1893, when there were rumors of an attack on United States forces, he reported for service under the American flag.' He exhibited copy of a letter to President Dole, of that date, informing him (Dole) of this position. In September, 1894, he was granted special letters of denization,' a copy of which, at his request, I inclose. Article 19 of the Hawaiian constitution refers to such letters and gives the oath required, which oath Mr. Godfrey signed, and by virtue of which he voted for members of the constitutional convention. He has held various positions under the Government, as clerk, proof reader, compiler, and in special service (under the marshal), but he claims that such employments were temporary, none of them over three months, and that he took no oath and received no commission.'

[ocr errors]

Mr. Willis, min. to Hawaii, to Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, Oct. 20, 1895,
For. Rel. 1895, II. 865. The certificate of denization was as follows:
REPUBLIC OF HAWAII.

To whom these presents shall come, greeting:
Know ye that in pursuance of the power conferred upon the executive
council by the constitution of the Republic of Hawaii, all of the
privileges of citizenship, including the right to vote, are by these
letters of denization conferred upon Frank Godfrey, a native of the
United States of America, who has resided in the Hawaiian Islands
for a period of fifteen years prior to the date of the promulgation of
the constitution, on the 4th day of July, A. D. 1894.

These letters are without prejudice to his native allegiance and subject
to his accountability to the laws of this Republic and his perform-
ance of all the duties and obligations of a citizen.

In testimony whereof we have caused these letters to be made patent and the great seal of the Republic to be hereto affixed at the executive building this 28th day of September, A. D. 1894.

[GREAT SEAL.]

SANFORD B. DOLE,

President.

FRANCIS M. HATCH,

Minister of Foreign Affairs.

J. A. KING,

Minister of Interior.

J. M. DAMON,

Minister of Finance.

WILLIAM O. SMITH,

Attorney-General.

"I quite agree with you as to the questionable nature of this claim upon its merits, even were Mr. Godfrey's right to claim protection established. It appears, however, from your relation of his statements and from the annexed copy of the certificate of denization granted to him, that his case is indistinguishable from those of other American citizens who have acquired local citizenship in Hawaii. Under the decisions of my predecessor, his taking the oath and voluntarily subjecting himself to accountability to the laws of the Hawaiian Republic and to performance of all the duties and obligations of a citizen thereof constitute naturalization for all Hawaiian purposes while within Hawaiian jurisdiction, and the phrase that 'these letters are without prejudice to his native allegiance' can have no significance either as to his status within Hawaiian jurisdiction or as to his status within the jurisdiction of the United States should he return hither, for in the latter case it would be determinable by the laws of this country and not by any administrative act of Hawaii."

Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Willis, min. to Hawaii, Nov. 13, 1895,
For. Rel. 1895, II. 867.

"I have to acknowledge receipt of your No. 27, Diplomatic Series, of the 15th September inquiring as to your proper treatment of the cases of certain citizens who, having emigrated to Liberia and acquired the rights of citizenship in that Republic, still claim that they are citizens of the United States.

"From your statement it appears that the Liberian Government does not require colored persons going from the United States to that Republic to renounce their allegiance to the Government of the United States or to take out naturalization papers, as is required in the case of immigrants from other countries, but that the fact of such a colored citizen of the United States taking out an allotment of land enables him to be regarded for all national purposes as a Liberian citizen.

"Analogous questions have arisen in the past regarding the status of American citizens resorting to Hawaii, the Danish island of St. Thomas, and other localities where an alien taking up local residence was, under certain formalities, admitted to all rights of citizenship without requiring abjuration of the allegiance of origin. In the case of Hawaii the formal act of admission to citizenship and the oath taken by the applicant purported to preserve the original allegiance for all effects not connected with domicil in Hawaii. Mr. Secretary Gresham, and after him Secretaries Olney and Sherman, held that an American so naturalized in Hawaii effectively lost his United States citizenship.

"In the case of an American in Liberia, which you report, the omission of an oath of allegiance or requirement of formal naturalization, constituting a peculiar exception in favor of American citizens, would at first sight appear to modify the principle involved in the Hawaiian decision. In fact, however, the principle involved is substantially the same. The Republic of Liberia is an independent sovereignty, in no wise bound to or dependent upon the United States, and, theoretically at least, it is within the range of possibilities that differences might arise between the two governments leading even to rupture of relations. It is inconsistent for an individual to bear true allegiance at the same time to two different sovereigns, and the exercise of the rights of citizenship under any alien sovereignty must be regarded as a voluntary assumption of the obligations of allegiance to such sovereignty.

"As a doctrine, therefore, it may be said that when a citizen of the United States acquires, by whatever process, the status of a Liberian citizen he performs an act incompatible with his allegiance to the United States and with his citizenship thereof.

"Nevertheless, the facts are not before this Department with sufficient clearness to enable it to lay down a rule designed to cover every case of the character you suggest which may arise in Liberia. Should any case actually arise, the particular facts and circumstances attending it should be reported to the Department for its decision.”

Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Smith, min. to Liberia, No. 20, November 6, 1898, MS. Inst. Liberia, II. 346.

4. MILITARY SERVICE.

$469.

Merely entering into the military or naval service of a foreign sovereign does not by itself work expatriation.

Santissima Trinidad, 1 Brock. 478; 7 Wheat. 283.

A native of the United States, naturalized as a citizen of Mexico, did not forfeit his right, under a grant from Mexico, to lands in California, by afterwards joining the forces of the United States in the war by which that territory was acquired.

United States v. Reading, 18 How. 1.

Under the declaration adopted by the convention of Texas, November 7, 1835, promising citizenship and donations of land to all volunteers in her war for independence, a citizen of Illinois, who afterwards entered her army as a volunteer, and who died in her service, became a citizen of Texas, and his wife's citizenship followed his, though she never came to Texas.

Kircher . Murray, 54 Fed. Rep. 617.

"Mr. Jefferson, when Secretary of State, in his letter to Gouverneur Morris of the 16th of August, 1793, speaking of the right of private citizens to make war upon a country with which the Government of the United States is at peace, says:

"It has been pretended, indeed, that the engagement of a citizen in an enterprise of this nature was a divestment of the character of citizen, and a transfer of jurisdiction over him to another sovereign. Our citizens are certainly free to divest themselves of that character by emigration, and other acts manifesting their intention, and may then become the subjects of another power, and free to do whatever the subjects of that power may do. But the laws do not admit that the bare commission of a crime amounts of itself to a divestment of the character of citizen, and withdraws the criminal from their coercion. They would never prescribe an illegal act among the legal modes by which a citizen might disfranchise himself; nor render treason, for instance, innocent, by giving it the force of a dissolution of the obligation of the criminal to his country.'

"This is in acordance with the opinion of the circuit court of the United States for Pennsylvania, by whom it was stated, in 1793, that, if one citizen of the United States may take part in the present war, ten thousand may. If they may take part on one side, they may take part on the other; and thus thousands of our fellow-citizens may associate themselves with different belligerent powers, destroying not only those with whom we have no hostility, but destroying each other. In such a case, can we expect peace among their friends who stay behind? And will not a civil war, with all its lamentable train of evils, be the natural effect?""

Report of Mr. Webster, Sec. of State, to the President, in Thrasher's case,
Dec. 23, 1851, 6 Webster's Works, 521, 527.

"In reply to your note dated the 21st inst., I have to inform you that it appears from the report of the American commissioners in the Robinson case, to which you allude, that the only question discussed was that of jurisdiction. It appears to have been contended by the Mexican commissioners that Robinson parted with his nationality on taking a commission in the Mexican army, and therefore his legal representatives could not prosecute his claim before the board. The American commissioners, however, decided that Mrs. Robinson, in whose name the claim was prosecuted, was an American citizen, and that therefore the case came within the jurisdiction of the board. It does not appear that the claim was resisted on its merits.

"The decision of the umpire was that the board had no jurisdiction of the case."

Mr. Thomas, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Brodhead, M. C., July 23, 1856,

45 MS. Dom. Let. 403, referring to the proceedings of the mixed com

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »