agents familiar with the language and traditions of such land, and since, when such agency is avowed, there is as little ground for an inference of abandonment of American citizenship in one case as in the other." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Winchester, min. to Switzerland, Oct. 12, 1887, For. Rel. 1887, 1073. Mr. Winchester's dispatch is printed in the same volume, at p. 1069. "If your client resides abroad as a member of an American firm, or as the necessary agent or factor of an enterprise originating and having its principal seat in the United States, and if he can truthfully aver his intention to return to the United States within a reasonable time, his case would be in good shape to make application to the embassy at London for a passport. In cases of representative business agencies abroad, the Department does not exact a declaration of intent to return at a fixed time, but it does require a declaration of a fixed intent to return sometime, which intent shall not be negatived by the obvious circumstances of the applicant's domicil abroad. Otherwise, in conformity with the admitted right of self-expatriation, the party must be deemed free to voluntarily abandon his American domicil and forego the duties of good citizenship, by permanent residence abroad, even though by so doing he absolves this Government.from the reciprocal duty to protect him so long as he continues to withdraw himself from his natural allegiance. Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Sturtevant, Nov. 25, 1896, 214 MS. Dom. (4) REASONS OF HEALTH. § 477. "It is presumed you will not deny that when a citizen of the United States goes abroad, without any intention to return, he forfeits, with his abandonment of his country, all right to the protection of its government. It is possible that, in going to the Fiji Islands, Mr. Burt may have purposed returning to his native country at some future period, but if this Department is not aware of any formal renunciation of his nationality on leaving for that quarter, it is equally unaware of any formal declaration of an intention to resume his abode in the United States and his allegiance to its Government. His purposes, therefore, are left open to inferIs there any case in which the Government may assume that a citizen who may have gone abroad has abandoned all intention to return home? There must be such in the nature of things. Sometimes such an inference is justified by the length of the stay of the citizen in foreign parts. If his absence should have been unduly protracted, thereby exempting him from the liabilities and burdens of ence. a citizen, and, especially, if, during the same period, events should have occurred appealing to the patriotism of all citizens to share equally in the common liabilities and burdens, when the occasion for such an appeal shall have passed, the party returns and asks help to avenge grievances there experienced during his country's agony at home, the duty of complying with such request is, to say the least, regarded as questionable. "You say that Mr. Burt bought a tract of land in a remote district of the Fiji Islands. If one thing more than another can justify the inference that a citizen who has left his own and continues a residence in a foreign country does this without an intention to return, it is when the person so leaving purchases, lives on, and works land in the foreign country. Mere travelers confessedly go abroad meaning to stay a limited time. Such, also, usually is the case with those who may go for scientific purposes; less so with those who go for objects of trade. When, however, a man buys, settles on, and cultivates an estate in a foreign country under such circumstances as those attending Mr. Burt's abode in the Fiji Islands, he may fairly be regarded as practically expatriated." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hackett, June 12, 1873, 99 MS. Dom. Let. 205. "It appears from your statement that you emigrated from the United States to Fiji in 1866, your object being to obtain a residence in a climate more favorable to your health. You there made considerable investments. In 1875 the Fiji Islands were annexed to Great Britain, and it appears that you suffered various injuries. both from the Fiji and the British Governments, which would entitle you to redress at least from the latter; and if you were a citizen of the United States, domiciled in the United States, you might in some contingencies sustain an appeal for the diplomatic intervention of this Department. Whether you still remain a citizen of the United States is a question which it is not necessary here to discuss. It is sufficient to say that your adoption of Fiji as a permanent home leads the Department to infer that you accepted a Fiji domicil. If so, your continuance in Fiji after British annexation makes your domicil British, and under these circumstances it is not thought that you can lay claim to the diplomatic intervention of this Department. "It was held in a recent case that, if a domicil in New Mexico was proved to have attached to a British subject there resident, this excluded such party from the right to appeal to British intervention for redress for wrongs inflicted on the party in New Mexico. The same principle rules the present case. "No doubt the grievances of which you complain entitle you to much sympathy, but, if domiciled in Fiji, your redress must now be sought from the British Government, either because it sanctioned such injuries or because it stands in the place of the Fiji authorities, by whom they were perpetrated." Mr. Porter, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Burt, July 11, 1885, 156 MS. The United States subsequently presented to the British Government a claim for the alleged wrongful disallowance by the British colonial authorities, after the annexation of the Fiji Islands to the British Crown, of Mr. Burt's title to the lands above referred to. The British Government having referred to the letters of Mr. Fish and Mr. Porter, above quoted, the Department of State communicated to the British Government a memorandum in which the objections made in those letters were answered. In this memorandum it was stated that the observation made by Mr. Fish related to another and different case, namely, a claim made by Mr. Burt for property destroyed in Fiji by the natives before annexation, almost ten years before the disallowance of Mr. Burt's title by the colonial authorities. Besides, said the memorandum, Mr. Fish was not in possession of all the facts and circumstances that had since come to the knowledge of the Department. Among the circumstances were the facts that Mr. Burt had rendered important service to his country in the Mexican War and afterwards on the Pacific coast, and that through such service he incurred physical disability which would have rendered him unfit for military service in the Civil War, and that he went to the South Sea islands on the advice of a physician. The memorandum also cited the opinion of Lord Campbell in Beattie v. Johnson, 10 Cl. & Fin. 139, to the effect that a change of domicil does not necessarily effect a change of national character, and that "there may be cases in which even a permanent residence in a foreign country, occasioned by the state of health, may not operate a change of domicil." Moreover, said the memorandum, when the claim for the disallowance of Burt's title was presented, he was then and still continued to be a citizen of the United States domiciled in the District of Columbia. The same observations, said the memorandum, applied equally to the letter of Mr. Porter. Memorandum accompanying instruction of Mr. Hill, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Choate, ambass. to England, Oct. 31, 1899, S. Doc. 140, 56 Cong. 2 sess. 55-57, 68, 70. The rule that persons who take up an apparently permanent abode in a foreign country are not entitled to diplomatic protection, does not apply to persons who go abroad for reasons of health and remain abroad many years, hoping to come back, yet prevented from doing so by continuing illness. "In one recent case in New York it was held that a lady whose residence in the south of France had for these reasons continued for over twenty years had not lost her New York domicil, and that her personal property was to be distributed according to the law of that domicil. In the rightfulness of this and kindred rulings I entirely concur, and I hold that as American domicil is in such cases retained so is American nationality, entitling such parties to the protection due to citizens of the United States." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Winchester, min. to Switzerland, Oct. The New York case above referred to doubtless is that of Dupuy v. See to the same effect, Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. White, min. to (5) RESIDENCE IN ORIENTAL LANDS. $ 478. The rule that the right to diplomatic protection is lost by an apparently permanent residence abroad "does not apply to American communities settled as such in Oriental lands and recognized in their distinctively national character by the system of government prevailing in such lands." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Winchester, min. to Switzerland, Oct. 12, 1887, For. Rel. 1887, 1073, 1074. It applies, however, to the return of a native to such a country. (Mr. Rockhill, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Burke, No. 51, Dec. 29, 1896, 154 MS. Inst. Consuls, 682.) As to national character in the East, see Abdy's Kent (1866), 224. "The doctrine of implied renunciation of citizenship by continuous residence in a foreign country does not completely apply to countries where citizens of the United States enjoy extraterritoriality. In such countries they live under the protection, more or less, of their own Government, and are answerable to its laws. Consequently they are generally held to retain their American domicil." Mr. Rives, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Sewall, consul-general at Apia, "In your No. 20, of August 20, 1887, you report your action in declining to grant a passport in the case of Alexander Hatchdoorian. "The facts appear to be these: The applicant, Alexander, is the son of Serkis Hatchdoorian, an Ottoman subject by birth, who emigrated to the United States, and was naturalized by the United States circuit court at Boston on June 14, 1854. In 1856 he returned to Turkey bearing a passport dated September 12 of that year, and has since resided there, claiming American citizenship, and being registered at the American consulate. It is not stated that he has at any time returned to the United States or expressed any intention or made any effort to return, or that he is engaged in any business in Turkey which keeps him there as the representative of American interests, or that he is a member of any particular American community in Turkey recognized in Turkey as having distinctive and continuous American privileges. "Alexander, the son, the present applicant, was born in Turkey on January 1, 1865, and therefore attained his majority on January 1, 1886. He has never resided in the United States, and now seeks a passport, not for the purpose of adopting a permanent domicil in this country or assuming any duties of such citizenship, but simply for the purpose of visiting it sometime.' Under these circumstances he falls within the rule repeatedly laid down in this Department that when a foreigner, after naturalization in the United States, returns to his native land and there, after merging himself in the society and nationality of that land, has a son, that son, should he remain there till his majority, is required, in order to have the protection of American nationality, not merely to elect American citizenship, but to carry that election out by taking immediate measures to come to the United States as a permanent abode. The latter condition does not exist in the present case, and therefore I am of opinion that the passport applied for by Alexander was properly refused by you. "From what has been said you will see that, while reiterating this rule, I am careful to exclude from its operation cases of persons who, with their families, remain in Turkey as the representatives of distinctively American business interests, and of persons belonging to particular American communities settled in Turkey, whose right to preserve a distinctive corporate and continuous American nationality is recognized by Turkey, and was affirmed by me in instructions to you, No. 7, of April 20, 1887, and repeated by me in instructions to W. C. Emmet, United States consul at Smyrna, inclosed in instructions to you, No. 37, of August 11 last. But the present applicant does not claim to fall within either of these classes, and is not, therefore, so far as the case presented by him shows, entitled to the immunities assigned to them." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Straus, min. to Turkey, Sept. 30, 1887, As to a somewhat analogous case, see For. Rel. 1886, 303. "I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 232, of the 20th ultimo, whereby you ask to be furinshed with specific instructions as |