character of an American citizen. The nature of his labors renders the place of his residence uncertain and changeable, and tends to negative the inference which ordinarily might be drawn from a prolonged absence from the United States. The Department is, therefore, of opinion that it is proper to issue him a passport." Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Grant, min. to Austria-Hungary, No. 42, "In respect to American-born citizens, residing abroad as missionaries in the employ of an American society, the Department is disposed to relax some of the requirements as to domicil and fixity of intention to return to the United States as defined in the application blanks." Mr. Foster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Newberry, No. 357, July 21, 1892, MS. The instructions of the Department of State in relation to the passport applications of American missionaries in China, as well as in other countries where the United States exercises extraterritorial jurisdiction," have taken the ground that the vocation of the missionaries employed by societies established in the United States may not admit of any very positive declarations of intention to return to the United States," but that " some declaration of a more or less floating or indefinite character," "displaying the intent to return, is necessary." The Department can not authorize the issuance of a passport upon any declaration tantamount to the expression of an intention not to return." But it was held that a declaration might be made in the following form: "I was, before coming to China, domiciled at in the United States, and I have not assumed any other legal domicil, but I have come to China to engage in missionary work under the auspices of a society organized and residing at in the United States." With regard to this declaration, for use in China, the following explanation was made: "This declaration may be accepted equally well from a naturalized citizen as from a native. As a Chinaman can not be naturalized in the United States, the deduction naturally following return to and continued domicil in the country of origin can not exist within your jurisdiction." Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Denby, min. to China, No. 1470, July 20, 1897, MS. Inst. China, V. 460. See Mr. Foster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Denby, min. to China, No. 737, July 18, 1892, For. Rel. 1892, 124. "I have to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatch, No. 283, of the 28th of November, inclosing passport application of Logan Her bert Roots and Oliver Tracey Logan, medical missionaries, which you have declined to grant on the ground that they do not state intention to return to the United States, but, on the contrary, expressly state their expectation to remain permanently in China, and also inclosing correspondence with the United States consul at Hankow on the subject, showing a difference of views between your legation and the consulate as to the propriety of issuing the passports in question under the Department rules. "A late instruction, which is applicable to the case under discussion, may be found in that paragraph of the Department's circular instruction of March 27, 1899, reading: "The status of American citizens resident in a semibarbarous country or in a country in which the United States exercises extraterritorial jurisdiction is singular. Their residence may be indefinitely prolonged, since obviously they can not become subjects of the native Government without grave peril to their safety. The Department's position with respect to these citizens has uniformly been to afford them the protection of a passport as long as their pursuits are legitimate and not prejudicial to the friendly relations of this Government with the Government within whose limits they are residing.' 66 The pursuits of a missionary, properly conducted, are legitimate, and American missionaries of good standing have always enjoyed continuous protection from this Government in China. In 1894 Mr. Gresham said: "Our legations have been authorized to issue passports to missionaries in foreign lands whose residence there was continuous and practically permanent, and who could not allege any definite intention of returning to, and residing in, the United States.' (The American Passport, p. 209.) 66 These are merely instances of instructions of the same character which have been often repeated, and which may be found upon consulting the volumes of Foreign Relations. Their substance is adequately compressed in the instruction of Mr. Cridler, the Third Assistant Secretary of State, to the consul at Hankow, dated September 4, 1899, and quoted by the consul in the correspondence you submit. Mr. Cridler said: 666 'Recognizing that such of our citizens who have gone to China to pursue their religious calling may not return, but continue their work indefinitely abroad, the Department is disposed to sanction their receiving passports on taking the oath of allegiance.' "It is true that in the Department's circular instruction of September 26, 1899, on the subject of passports and intent to return to the United States, the words quoted in the legation's letter of November 27, 1899, to the consul at Hankow occur: 'A passport should not issue to any person who does not intend to return to the United States.' This language, however, should be taken in connection with the rest of the same sentence: As explained in the Department's circular instruction of March 27, 1899, a passport should not issue to any person who does not intend to return to the United States,' etc. That circular (March 27, 1899) fully explained the exceptional position of American citizens resident in a country like China. "It is not intended by this instruction that the legation should issue a passport to anyone who declares that he neither intends nor desires to return to this country, or even to anyone who defiantly announces that he has no intention of returning, for such a statement would be tantamount to the expression of a desire to expatriate himself and absolve himself from allegiance to the United States; but as long as the loyal attachment to this Government continues and the legitimate and proper occupation of the applicant in China precludes his entertaining a definite purpose of return, the protection of a passport should continue. Taking the applications of Messrs. Roots and Logan as they appear in the legation's dispatch, the Department is of opinion that they should receive renewed passports." Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Conger, min. to China, Jan. 18, 1900, For. 9. EFFECT OF EXTRATERRITORIALITY. § 522. Henry Asché, who was born in Bassorah, Turkey, in 1866, and who had resided there, and in Germany and France, but had never been in the United States, applied to the United States legation in Paris, in 1888, for a passport. He claimed American citizenship through his father, a native of Germany, who was naturalized in the United States in 1854, but who a few years later settled in Bassorah, where he thereafter continued to live, and where he died in 1870. The son manifested no intention of ever coming to the United States. "It is to be doubted," said the Department of State, "whether the father, under these circumstances of such continuous abandonment of his American residence and all the duties and responsibilities of American citizenship, could have been entitled to a passport without having a well-established intention on his part of returning to the country whose protection he so sought, and for which he proposed to render no equivalent. But the son of such a person born abroad, always living abroad, in Turkey, in Germany, and in France, never having been in the United States, and having no intention ever to come here, being of full age, is not entitled to receive the certification of the citizenship of a country towards whom he sustains none of the relations of a citizen. Whatever might have been the right of the Aschés, father and son, if their continuous residence in Turkey as American citizens had been alleged and established, is not necessary to be here considered because no such case is shown, but on the contrary the voluntary residence of the son in Germany (the country of his father's origin) and in France, coupled by his election when upwards of twenty-two years of age there to reside, without any intention ever to come to the United States, proves abundantly his abandonment of American citizenship." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. McLane, min. to France, May 7, 1888, Mr. Coombs, minister of the United States at Tokio, referring, in a dispatch of July 14, 1893, to the withholding of passports from citizens of the United States on account of their continuous and indefinite foreign residence, said: "I hope I may be able to call your attention to the practical operation of this rule in the East without seeming to question its correctness. There are many Americans in Japan engaged in a variety of occupations who must fall under the ban of this law; some employed by the Japanese Government, some in mercantile pursuits, some in the professions, and all in their different places exercising an influence on civilization and giving strength to the position of our country. "Our institutions are upheld, our flag honored, and the national character exalted. If they are not afforded the ordinary protection of their country their influence would be destroyed and, I imagine, their places would be filled by other nationals. These men exert as much good for their country as they could if they were within its territory. "They, nevertheless, are called upon to perform jury duties in consular courts and are otherwise amenable to the processes thereof. To suspend their rights means to destroy one of the great national influences of our people in the East." To these observations the following answer was made: "In those oriental countries where the rule of extraterritoriality prevails, the test of citizenship found in a continued connection with business interests having their root in the United States may have its weight, but there are other tests, as Mr. Coombs suggests, having equal or perhaps greater value in showing a bona fide conservation of the American character and an effort to uphold the good repute of our country abroad. It should not be difficult in the light of common sense to distinguish between merely selfish residence abroad, under circumstances which involve a practical renunciation of all home ties and the adoption of a course which essentially requires the individual's nationality to be asserted. Men who are by their employment and conduct exercising an influence on civilization and giving strength to the position of our country' in Japan, need not fear inquiry into the good faith wherewith they retain a distinctive American nationality." Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dun, min. to Japan, Aug. 22, 1893, W., who was born in South Africa of American parents, had never been in the United States, and declared merely that he would go thither "within my lifetime," applied, at the age of 24, to the American legation at Tokio for a passport. He had obtained an American passport three years previously from the legation in China, where he then resided. The Department of State instructed the legation at Tokio that, unless W. should satisfy it "of his intention to come in the reasonably near future to reside in the United States and perform the duties pertaining to American citizenship, he would not appear to be entitled to a passport; " that section 1993, Revised Statutes, declaring the foreign-born "children" of American citizens to be citizens also, did not entitle one so born "to disregard all duties of citizenship indefinitely and to live abroad permanently without imputation of his nationality;" that as W. was residing, if not domiciled, in Japan, where the alien privilege of extraterritoriality had been abrogated, his status was governed by the same principles as if he were residing in a European state; that the point to be determined was whether "by domicil, occupation, and domestic ties" he had "so far permanently identified himself with the country of his residence as to create a presumption of abandonment of his American status strong enough to outweigh any merely floating intention he may have of eventually making the United States his home;" but that it was, "as a general thing, the Department's desire to deal as broadly as possible with questions affecting the rights of Americans sojourning in the far Orient, and to consider whether, if the protection of the United States should be withdrawn, the individual can obtain any other." Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Buck, min. to Japan, March 21, 1900, For. "The status of American citizens resident in a semibarbarous country or in a country in which the United States exercises extraerritorial jurisdiction is singular. If they were subjects of such power before they acquired citizenship in the United States, they are amenable, upon returning, to the same restrictions of residence as are laid down in the beginning of this instruction, and for the same reasons; but if they are not in that category, their residence may be indefinitely prolonged, since obviously they can not become subjects of the native government without grave peril to their safety. The Department's position with respect to these citizens has uniformly been to afford them the protection of a passport as long as their pur |