taken by a deputy consul-general.117 The word "consul" includes any person invested by the government with the functions of consul-general, vice consul-general, or vice-consul. An acknowledgment before a consul-general is valid.11 Stewart v. Linton, 204 Pa. 207, 53 Atl. 744. See, also, Evans v. Lee, 11 Neb. 194; Mott v. Smith, 16 Cal. 533; Brown v. Landon, 30 Hun, 57. 118 Morris v. Lenton, 61 Neb. 537, 85 N. W. 565. It is held that a deputy United States consul, by reason of his confidential relations with the consul and on the ground of public policy, is not qualified to act as a commissioner to take the deposi 118 tion of the consul issued under an act of Maryland of 1773, in a case in which the consul is the plaintiff, and that a deposition taken by the deputy under such circumstances will be suppressed if it is shown that the defendant was ignorant of the fact that the commissioner was the deputy consul at the time when the deposition was taken. Massachusetts Mut. Acc. Assn. v. Dudley, 15 App. D. C. 472. § 468. § 469. § 470. Setting aside certificate of citizenship under recent law. Expatriation of American citizens. § 471. Statute of 1907. § 459. Naturalization and expatriation.—It is not proposed to enter at length into a discussion of the questions relating to naturalization and expatriation. So far as naturalization is concerned, it is purely a matter for internal regulation, as Congress may say what class of persons shall or shall not be admitted to citizenship, and upon what terms. Many questions have arisen as to the acts that would deprive a foreign-born citizen who has become naturalized in the United States of his rights of citizenship when he had left the United States either for a temporary or permanent residence abroad. The perplexing questions as to what acts would constitute a renunciation of American citizenship which formed the basis of much diplomatic correspondence have, so far as the government of the United States is concerned, now been settled by legislation. § 460. Perpetual allegiance.-Frequent disputes have arisen between the United States and European governments which claimed the right to demand military service from persons born within their allegiance but who had become naturalized citizens of the United States. The doctrine of perpetual allegiance was thus expressed by Lord Greenville: "No British subject can, by such a form of renunciation as that which is prescribed in the OF THE INIVERSITY OF 463 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN DOCTRINE. [§ 461 American law of naturalization, devest himself of his allegiance to his sovereign. Such a declaration of renunciation made by any of the king's subjects would, instead of operating as a protection to them, be considered an act highly criminal on their part." This principle was not admitted by the United States. In 1848 Mr. Buchanan, Secretary of State, in a note to Mr. Bancroft, Minister to England, said: "Whenever the occasion may require it, you will resist the British doctrine of perpetual allegiance, and maintain the American principle that British nativeborn subjects, after they have been naturalized under our laws, are, to all intents and purposes, as much American citizens and entitled to the same degree of protection as though they had been born in the United States.'' 2 § 461. American doctrine. The United States settled the principle to prevail in this country by declaring that "the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," and that "any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officer of the United States which denies, restricts, impairs or questions the right of expatriation, is declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the republic." It was further declared that "all naturalized citizens of the United States, while in foreign countries, are entitled to and shall receive from this government, the same protection of persons and property which is accorded to native-born citizens, "4 and that whenever it is made known to the President "that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty, by or under the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand of that government the reasons of such imprisonment; and if it appears to be wrongful and in violation of the rights of American citizenship, the President shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen, and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, the President shall use such means, not 1 To Mr. King, American Minister, March 27, 1897, American State Papers, For. Rel., II, 148. 2 47 Brit. & For. State Pap. 1236, 3 Rev. Stats., sec. 1999; U. S. Comp. Stats. 1901, 1269. Rev. Stats., sec. 2000; Comp. Stats. 1901, 1270. amounting to acts of war, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate the release."' 5 In England it is now, by statute, declared that a British subject may expatriate himself." § 462. Compulsory military service. The question has arisen as to the obligation of a foreign resident to render compulsory military service, and Mr. Seward, while Secretary of State, expressed the rule to be that "No alien-born person is liable to render military service unless he has been naturalized on his own application, or has made a voluntary declaration on oath of his intention to become a citizen by naturalization, according to law, or has claimed and actually exercised the political right of voting as a citizen of the United States."'7 The government of the United States during the Civil War claimed that all persons who had voted as state citizens were liable to conscription, and declared by an act of Congress that the levy should include "all persons of foreign birth, who shall have declared on oath their intention to become citizens.' But where there is no treaty stipulation convening the case, a citizen of the United States who is a resident in Chile cannot claim exemption from service in a temporary civic guard in which all residents are required to serve by law. § 463. Claim of exemption as a matter of comity.-In 1873 Mr. Davis, Assistant Secretary of State, said that there was no treaty stipulation between Great Britain and the United States which exempts the citizens or subjects of either party from military duty in the forces of the other either in peace or war, and that such exemption could not be claimed as a matter of right. But "as a matter of comity and reciprocity, however, we certainly can claim them. During the late Civil War in this country, there were numerous instances where British subjects were drafted into the military service of the United States, but were subsequently discharged upon the application of the British Minister here. The only cases in which a compliance with such an application was refused were the few in which persons of that nationality 5 Rev. Stats., sec. 2001; U. S. Comp. Stats. 1901, 1270. 33 & 34 Vict. 105, c. 14. 62 MS. Dom. Let. 333, 502. s Mr. Fish, Secretary of State, to Mr. Williamson, No. 140, June 13, 1876, MS. Inst. Chile, XVI, 181. had voted in states where foreigners not fully naturalized are allowed that privilege."". § 464. Treaties of naturalization.-A treaty relating to nat uralization was concluded between the United States and the North German Confederation on February 22, 1868.10 Similar treaties were made with Bavaria, May 26, 1868; 11 Baden, July 19, 1868; 12 Württemberg, July 27, 1868; and Hesse, August 1, 1868.13 On May 26, 1869, a naturalization convention was concluded between the United States and Sweden and Norway, whereby a citizen of one country who has resided in the other "for a continuous period of at least five years," and has become naturalized is recognized as a citizen of the country of his adoption. In a protocol accompanying the treaty it is declared that the residence of five years shall not be considered a prerequisite where a person has been discharged from his original citizenship.14 § 465. Other treaties on same subject.-The United States and Great Britain, by a convention, signed May 30, 1870, recognize in one country naturalization acquired in the other.15 In 1870, a convention was entered into between the United States and the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, providing for the naturalization of citizens of the respective countries after an uninterrupted residence of five years. It is stipulated that a natu ralized citizen of one party on return to the territory of the other shall be liable to trial and punishment for an action pun. ishable by the laws of his country committed before his immigration, and that in particular a former citizen of the AustroHungarian monarchy who, under the treaty, would be held to be an American citizen, is liable to trial and punishment according to the laws of Hungary for nonfulfillment of military duties. "1st. If he has emigrated, after having been drafted at the time of conscription, and thus having become enrolled as a recruit for service in the standing army; 2d. If he has emigrated whilst he March 7, 1873, 69 MS. Desp. to Consuls, 254. * 15 Stats. at Large, 615. "15 Stats. at Large, 661. Treaties-30 12 16 Stats. at Large, 371. 14 17 Stats. at Large, 809. |