L., a native of Hamburg, emigrated to the United States in 1862, when 17 years of age, and resided there till 1868, when, having become naturalized, he went to Russia where he had since uninterruptedly resided. As to his future residence, he merely stated that he intended to return to the United States "when able to." It was held that this statement was "altogether too indefinite to be entitled to serious consideration," and that when his alleged intention to come to the United States was "corroborated by the fact of his acquiring a residence or domicil here, which shall appear to be in good faith," it would " then be proper to consider his claims for the issuance of a passport." Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. White, min. to Russia, March 24, 1893, A. G., a native of Russia, emigrated to the United States in 1889. He was naturalized July 24, 1894, and four months later left the United States, taking with him a passport issued by the Department of State. He apparently went directly to Hamburg, where he entered his brother's bank, in which he was still employed. His purpose of " continued indefinite residence" in Hamburg being stated in his application, it was held that a passport was properly denied him. Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Silberman, Nov. 6, 1896, 213 MS. Dom. 6. STATEMENT AS TO INTENTION TO RETURN. § 519. In the general instructions in regard to passports, issued by the Department of State May 1, 1886," it was directed that a naturalized citizen applying abroad for a passport must state under oath that his absence since his naturalization had been "such as not to work an abandonment of his nationality" and that he expected "to return to the United States as his domicil and final abode." The statement of a definite intention as to return to the United States soon began to be exacted of all applicants for passports-of native as well as of naturalized citizens, and of applicants for passports in the United States as well as abroad; and a clause was inserted in the forms of application to the effect that "I [the applicant] intend to return to the t As has heretofore been pointed out, supra, § 503, these instructions are printed in Wharton's Int. Law Dig. II. 469, but do not appear to be now of record in the Department of State. United States with the purpose of residing and performing the duties of citizenship therein.” a This addition to previous requirements perhaps may be ascribed to the temporary influence, which has heretofore been noticed" of the suggestion that the conception of domicil might be so enlarged as to comprehend political as well as civil relations and supplement if not overshadow citizenship as the test of nationality. But, although the suggestion itself soon fell into desuetude, it produced certain indirect results, some of which, even if perpetuated by force of citation, may be supported on other grounds. Since the requirement of a definite statement as to return was established, it has naturally formed the pivot on which the question of the effect of foreign residence has turned. Moritz Philipp Emden was born in Germany in 1826, emigrated to the United States in 1849, and was naturalized in June, 1854. In the following October he obtained a passport from the Department of State, and in November sailed for Europe. He returned to the United States in 1856 and remained till January, 1859, when he again went to Europe, where, with the exception of a few brief visits, all prior to 1863, he afterwards resided. In 1881 Mr. Nicholas Fish, then American chargé d'affaires at Berne, declined to renew his passport, and his action was approved by Mr. Blaine, who was then Secretary of State. The case continued to form the subject of correspondence till January, 1883, when instructions were obtained from Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Cramer, then American chargé d'affaires at Berne, directing the issuance of a passport to Mr. Emden, to embrace both him and his wife and his two minor children. Mr. Cramer renewed this passport in February, 1885, but declined to include in it Mr. Emden's two sons, who had then attained their majority. In 1887 Mr. Winchester, then American minister at Berne, declined to grant another renewal of Mr. Emden's passport. Mr. Winchester's action was based largely upon the ground that the only declaration made by Mr. Emden with regard to his return was that he intended to return "whenever business requires my presence." In approving Mr. Winchester's action, the Department of State said: "The Department expects that its agents abroad, to whose discretion the issuance of passports is confided, will exact unequivocal declaration of a positive intent to return to the United States, there to continue the domicil contemplated by the statute and regulations. Business visits to the United States are not evidence of domiciliary intent any more than business trips of a See passport circular of Aug. 20, 1888, and the accompanying forms and regulations, For. Rel. 1888, II. 1662. Supra, § 491. American citizens to foreign countries evince an intent to reside there." Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Fish, No. 203, April 1, 1881, MS. Inst. A. C. A. Cranz applied to the American legation at Brussels, in 1886, for a passport. It appeared that he was born in Germany in April, 1860; that he emigrated to America in September, 1877; that he was naturalized in Boston in 1882; that he last left the United States in December, 1883, and that in 1884 he was temporarily residing at Brussels. His father lived in Austria, of which country he was a subject, and the son was associated with him in business. In his passport application Mr. Cranz declared that he had no intention to return to the United States to reside, though possibly he might at some time make a visit there, and that he desired the passport for the purpose of residing in Europe. The refusal to issue him a passport was approved. Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Tree, min. to Brussels, April 9, 1886, A native of Prussia, born about 1820, emigrated to the United States in 1857, and was naturalized in 1865. He returned to Europe in 1871 and was still residing there when, in 1887, he applied to the American legation at Brussels for a passport. In his application he declared that he was temporarily residing at Brussels, but that he had "no fixed intention" of returning to the United States; that his return would "depend on circumstances." The legation declined to issue a passport and its action was approved, on the ground that the applicant had been absent from the United States for sixteen years and had no fixed intention of returning at any time in the future. Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Tree, min. to Belgium, April 13, 1887, in reply to Mr. Tree's No. 224, of March 28, 1887, For. Rel. 1887, 34, 38. As to the abuse of American naturalization by persons maintaining a permanent foreign residence, see Mr. Tree to Mr. Bayard, April 8, 1887, For. Rel. 1887, 37. A passport should be "refused to a naturalized citizen residing abroad who has no intention at present of returning to the United States, and who is unable to state whether he will do so or not, or when he may do so." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Vignaud, chargé at Paris, June 13, 1888, "Persons who have no intention of ever returning to the United States, or, what is the same thing, who do not know their own minds on the subject, are not, as you have been already instructed, entitled to the evidence of protection by the United States which is afforded by a passport. On the other hand, those who can not name a precise date for their return are not necessarily to be denied the possession of such evidence, for a distinction, which should be carefully borne in mind, exists between a fixed intention to return and an intention to return at a fixed date. The existence of the former state of mind must be established by competent evidence, to your satisfaction, before you may issue a passport; the existence of the latter intention is merely cumulative evidence on the point. "It is not to be understood that the Department in so instructing you intends to introduce any novel doctrines or to extend its instructions in any respect beyond the precise point involved the issuance of passports by our legations abroad. While resolute in claiming for domicil all the rights attached to it by the law of nations, this Department is equally resolute in insisting that the term 'domicil' should not be enlarged so as to make it convertible with residence.' Important reasons may be assigned for this, which will at once suggest themselves to you." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. McLane, min. to France, Oct. 29, 1888, Mr. Frank R. Blackinton, a native citizen of the United States, applied to the American legation in Paris for a passport. He was born in 1851, and left the United States in 1871, since which time he had generally resided abroad. It appeared, however, that he had in eighteen years been nine times in the United States, remaining for a few months at a time; and he deposed that his domicil was in the United States, and his legal residence in Massachusetts, where he had always paid real and personal taxes. So far as these facts were concerned, they were declared by the Department of State to indicate that he was entitled to a passport, but, when required to fill up that part of the application declaring an intention to return to the United States with the purpose of residing and performing the duties of citizenship therein, Mr. Blackinton replied “that at present I have no plan, intention, or desire to do so." In view of this declaration, the Department of State said: "The Department finds itself unable to direct favorable action upon Mr. Blackinton's application. If the Department had been left to gather this intention from antecedent facts, it would have come to a different conclusion, although no positive statement as to his future residence in the United States had been made; but it is superfluous to say that it is not admissible to resort to such inference to attribute to a person an intention to per form the duties of citizenship in the future, when he declares that he has neither intention nor desire to do so. Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Reid, min. to France, No. 76, Dec. 2, 1889, See the similar case of H. C. Quinby, For. Rel. 1890, 335, 342. "It is not the purpose of the Department to require in all cases a certain statement as to the time at which an applicant for a passport intends to return to the United States. Various cases are conceivable in which it would be impossible to make such a statement in good faith, but in which the residence abroad would be entirely compatible with the retention of allegiance to the United States. The important object is, so far as possible, to ascertain the actual intention of the applicant, and for this purpose the statement made by him on the subject of return is not the only-and often not the most satisfactory— source of information. It is not difficult to conceive of cases the circumstances of which would clearly forbid the extension of protection to an applicant, although his declarations of allegiance and of intention to perform the duties of citizenship were strong and unqualified. His whole previous course of conduct might conclusively negative such a pretension. On the other hand, the good faith of the applicant and his right to protection might be clear, notwithstanding that he was unable to say that he would return to the United States at a certain day. But, where no such statement is made, the reasons for the omission should appear. The omission is one that requires explanation, and under some circumstances the excuse would have to be established by stronger evidence than under others. For example, a youth approaching the age when he will be liable to perform military service, leaves his native country and comes to the United States and is naturalized. Immediately after his naturalization he returns to the country of his origin, and, when asked to declare his intention in respect to return to the country of his adoption, is unable to make any definite statement. Such a case would, upon its face, require evidence of good faith of a very cogent character.” Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Phelps, min. to Germany, No. 50, Jan. 10, 1890, For. Rel. 1890, 300. For instructions to investigate, in the case of Bela Washington Fornet, the question of intent to return, see Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Grant, min. to Austria-Hungary, March 25, 1890, For. Rel. 1890, 11. H. L. B. applied to the American legation at The Hague in 1891 for a passport for himself and his son, a youth less than nineteen years of age. It appeared that H. L. B. was born in the Netherlands in 1848, and that his father was naturalized as a citizen of the United States in 1868. It also appeared that H. L. B. lived in the United |