« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »
the case, the regulations in regard to issuing passports are not imposed by Congress, but are discretionary with the Executive, and may at any time be interpreted or modified by the Department of State. They should certainly not be applied in such a way as to exclude from a passport persons by whom it may be most needed, as in the present case.”
Mr. Porter, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Winchester, min. to Switzerland,
No. 4, July 11, 1885, For. Rel. 1885, 807.
The action of the legation of the United States at St. Petersburg in declining to comply with the request of the public prosecutor of the Moscow district for the evidence on which a passport was issued to a naturalized citizen of the United States was approved by the Department of State, especially as it was presumed that the information was sought for the purpose of sustaining a charge of naturalization abroad without the permission of the Russian Government.
For. Rel. 1896, 522.
Although the restrictions upon the issuance of passports are sometimes evaded by applying first to one legation and then to another, it , has not been found to be practicable to apply a remedy by notifying all other missions of the rejection of an application by one of them. The circular of the Department of State of February 25, 1897, requires applicants to declare whether they have applied elsewhere and been refused a passport. The good judgment of each envoy is trusted to scrutinize passport applications presented to him, with a view of eliciting the facts and acting accordingly.
Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Storer, min. to Belgium, Feb. 4, 1899, For.
Rel. 1899, 81, 85.
“ Believing, as I do, that, under the statute governing the issuance of passports, declarations of identity, made by applicants for passports before a consular officer charged for the time being with the care of American interests, should be entitled to full faith and credit by the officials or agents of this Government, I have instructed Mr. Straus, at Constantinople, in this sense."
Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Elliot, Jan. 12, 1900, 170 MS. Inst. ('onsuls,
2. NATIVE CITIZENS.
Appropriate forms of applications are furnished for the use of (1) native citizens, (2) naturalized citizens, (3) persons claiming citizenship through the naturalization of parent or husband, and (+) residents of the insular possessions of the United States.
An application, containing the information indicated in the extract given in the foregoing section from the rules of 1903, suffices in the case of native citizens.
Persons born in the United States of alien parents are not required to produce proofs of the subsequent naturalization of their parents, since their citizenship is derived not from their parents' naturalization, but from the fact of their American birth, the Constitution of the United States providing that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Mr. Hill, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. White, ambass, to Germany, May 21,
1901, For. Rel. 1901, 178. See, also, Mr. Wharton, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Phelps, min. to Germany,
No. 276, July 22, 1891, For. Rel. 1891, 515.
But a person born abroad, whose father was a native citizen of the United States, must show that his father was born in the United States, and resided therein, and was a citizen at the time of the applicant's birth. The affidavit to this effect may be required to be supported by the affidavit of one other citizen acquainted with the facts.
Rules governing the Granting and Issuing of Passports in the United
States, Sept. 12, 1903.
"A naturalized citizen must transmit his certificate of naturalization, or a duly certified copy of the court record thereof, with his application. It will be returned to him after inspection. He must state in his affidavit when and from what port he emigrated to this country, what ship he sailed in, where he has lived since his arrival in the United States, when and before what court he was naturalized, and that he is the identical person described in the certificate of naturalization. The signature to the application should conform in orthography to the applicant's name as written in his certificate of naturalization, or an explanation of the difference should be submitted."
Rules Governing the Granting and Issuance of Passports in the United
States, Sept. 12, 1903.
The wife or widow of a naturalized citizen, if she claims citizenship by virtue of her husband's naturalization, “ must transmit for inspection her husband's certificate of naturalization, must state that she
is the wife (or widow) of the person described therein, and must set forth the facts of his emigration, naturalization, and residence, as required in the rule governing the application of a naturalized citizen."
“I have to state that, in relation to the party who has lost his naturalization papers obtained in a State now in insurrection against the Government of the United States, it will be sufficient in order to obtain a passport from this Department if he shall make affidavit of the facts in the case, joined with that of a person who has some [seen such papers in his possession. "
Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Latham, July 23, 1861, 54 MS. Dom.
W. E. B. applied to the United States legation at Buenos Ayres for a passport, alleging that he was a naturalized American citizen of German birth, but that he had lost his certificate of naturalization. As he was unable to furnish proof of such loss, the legation at first declined to issue a passport, but afterwards granted one on his producing the affidavits of two American sea captains, said to be known to the United States consul as "good and true men,” which declared that the affiants knew that W. E. B. was “a naturalized citizen under the laws of the State of New York," and that his representations were true. With reference to the case as thus stated, and without having before it the original documents, the Department of State said that the action of the legation appeared to have been improvident.
Mr. Bayard, See, of State, to Mr. Hanna, min. to Argentine Republic, No.
61, March 27, 1888, For. Rel. 1888, I. 11.
"(1) Is a passport to be refused to the wife or widow of a naturalized citizen who has not the naturalization papers of her husband?
“(2) Is a passport to be refused to a naturalized citizen who has left his naturalization papers at home, or who has lost them?
“ The legation should require the original certificate or a duly certified copy thereof to be produced as the best evidence of citizenship. If the applicant shall be unable to produce a certificate of naturalization or a certified copy thereof, then the naturalization certificate, like all other records, may be proved by parol, but to admit parol proof of it the following conditions must exist :
“(a) The prior existence of the certificate must be shown.
“(6) If burned or otherwise destroyed, such destruction of the certificate must be proved.
"(c) If lost, diligent but ineffectual search for it must be shown.
“(d) Parol proof of a lost or destroyed certificate should not be received if the original record of naturalization, of which a certified copy could be procured, is attainable. A party who can not produce his naturalization certificate can not supply it by parol proof unless he also prove that the original record of naturalization is unattainable and can not be reproduced by a certified copy."
Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to M. Vignaud, chargé at Paris, No. 343, June
13, 1888, For. Rel. 1888, I. 542. This instruction was reallirmed by Mr. Rives, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr.
McLane, June 30, 1888, For. Rel. 1888, I. 547.
“ You suggest that a discrimination is made, under the instructions recently given to you, between natives and naturalized citizens of the United States, or at least that applicants for passports may allege the existence of such a discrimination. The answer to this suggestion seems to me plain. The rule of proof applied to each class of citizens is the same; and it is the well-known legal rule, universally adopted, that in all cases the proof to be submitted of the existence of a fact must be the best proof of which the case is in its nature susceptible. In the case of native citizens of the United States, as there is no system in existence of individual registration, such as exists in some other countries, the best proof is by affidavit and personal identification to the satisfaction of the legation. But in the case of naturalized citizens additional and other facts essentially different must be established.
“ By the laws of the United States naturalization of a foreign-born person to be an American citizen is intrusted to the courts of record, both of the several States and of the United States. By the rules of evidence, as universally administered here, the record of such court can be proved either by an inspection of the records themselves or by a certified copy under the seal of the court; and such evidence is the conclusive and sole proof of the action of the court.
Whenever the question of citizenship is brought in issue within the United States the certified abstract from the record of the court is required to establish the fact of naturalization. In cases of loss or destruction of the original records an exception is made, but then the ground for the introduction of secondary evidence must be laid by proofs in the usual mode.
" It is not perceived how a less stringent rule could properly be laid down for the guidance of the agents of the Government residing in foreign countries. The expediency of increased strictness is rather apparent, when the serious nature and consequences of the guarantees of national protection which are to accompany the issue of a passport are taken into consideration. At the present time, questions of
allegiance and citizenship are undergoing unusually serious examination in Europe, especially in the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine, lately part of the territory of France, but in which German power is now maintained in consequence of cession under the duress of war. The obligations of the Government to its citizens are of the most farreaching nature, and the United States expect to perform their full duty in protecting their citizens abroad, but the fact of such citizenship must be established before our intervention can be appealed to. It is not competent for this Department to alter the law which makes naturalization the act of a judicial court of record, and for that reason to be proven like other records.
“The hardships of the enforcement of the rule here insisted upon, and which is not, as you seem to suppose, of recent origin, are more apparent than real. The procurement of a certificate of naturalization under the seal of the court is easy and inexpensive, and duplicates can always be obtained before going abroad, or within a fortnight, by telegraphing, by anyone now in Europe.
“ The instructions heretofore given (No. 343) have thus been reviewed in the light of your recent representations, and it is not perceived how this Department, consistently with public interests or duty, can dispense with the customary and reasonable proof of American naturalized citizenship.
“ The present time appears opportune to inform that portion of the public who propose in their residence in foreign countries to enjoy all the privileges of American citizenship, that at least they must establish their right to do so by the usual and easily acquired proofs.”
Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. McLane, min. to France, July 20, 1888,
For. Rel. 1888, I. 552.
I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 645, of the 23d ultimo, in which you inform the Department of your issuance of a passport to Mr. Max Hellman, a naturalized citizen of the United States, without the exhibition by him of his certificate of naturalization, as required by the rules of this Department. You state that he is well known to you personally, that he has been a naturalized citizen of the United States for thirty years, and that while he failed to produce a certificate of naturalization, he exhibited passports heretofore issued to him by this Department, and also by the American legation at Paris.
“ Upon these facts, and especially in view of your personal knowledge of the applicant, your action is approved. The personal knowlege of a minister of the United States necessarily obviates the necessity of more formal proof."
Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. McLane, min. to France, Aug. 10, 1888,
For. Rel. 1888, I. 557.