ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

children of American citizens born in such country are subjects of its government, the legislation of the United States should not be construed so as to interfere with the allegiance which they owe to the country of their birth while they continue within its territory, or until they shall have relieved themselves of that allegiance and have assumed their rights of American citizenship, in conformity with the laws and Constiturion of the country, and have brought themselves personally within its jurisdiction.

I have above referred to the proviso to the act of 1855. It is evident from this that the law-making power not only had in view the limit (above referred to) to the efficiency of municipal law in foreign jurisdiction, but intended that a distinction be observed between the right of citizenship, declared by the act of 1855, and the full citizenship of persons born within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, for those declared to be citizens by the act could not transmit citizenship to their children without having become residents within the United States; the heritable blood of citizenship was thus associated unmistakeably with residence within the country, which was thus recognized as essential to full citizenship.

The provisions of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution have been considered. This amendment is not only of more recent date, but is a higher authority than the act of Congress referred to, and if there be any conflict between them, or any difference, the Constitution must control, and that makes the subjection of the person of the individual to the jurisdiction of the Government a requisite of citizenship.

It does not necessarily follow from this that the children of American parents born abroad may not have the rights of inheritance, and of succession to estates, although they may not reside within or ever come within the jurisdiction of the United States. That question is not within the present consideration.

But if the citizen, on the one side, has rights which he may claim at the hands of the Government, on the other side there are imperative duties which he should perform toward that Government. If, on the one hand, the Government assumes the duty of protecting his rights and his privileges, on the other hand the citizen is supposed to be ever ready to place his fortune and even his life at its service, should the public necessities demand such a sacrifice. If, instead of doing this, he permanently withdraws his person from the national jurisdiction, if he places his property where it cannot be made to contribute to the national necessities; if his children are born and reared upon a foreign soil, with no purpose of returning to submit to the jurisdiction of the United States, then, in accordance with the principles laid down by Chief Justice Marshall, and recognized in the fourteenth amendment, and in the act of 1868, he has so far expatriated himself as to relieve this Government from the obligation of interference for his protection.

The Executive Department of the Government has had occasion to consider this question in negotiating and concluding treaties on the subject of naturalization. Thus it has been agreed with Bavaria, with Hesse, with Mexico, with North Germany, and with Würtemburg, that the residence of a naturalized citizen in the land of his nativity, without intent to return to the United States, shall work of itself a renunciation of his naturalization, and that such an intent may be held to exist where the residence is continuous for more than two years.

This Department would not assume to decide that in such cases as are referred to in your dispatch a continuous residence in a foreign country of two or even of many years should of itself work an expatriation.

Expatriation is a fact to be established, like any other fact, by external evidence, and such continuous residence, even for a life-time, is capable of being explained on other theories than that of a voluntary denation-. alization. But, when the fact is once established, by whatever proof, it would, in the opinion of this Department, operate to place the expatriated person outside the number of those who can claim the protection of this Government as a right.

The duty of protection as toward the citizen, or the right of its exercise as toward the foreign power, is not always correlative with the fact of citizenship. Thus it was demonstrated by my predecessor, Mr. Marcy, that an extreme case may arise in which a government will be justified in taking upon itself the protection of persons who are not citizens. On the other hand, it is apparent that there may be instances of claims to citizenship which is nominal only, if it have any existence, as where the duties of citizenship have never been performed, where the person of the individual has never been within the national jurisdiction, or is voluntarily removed from it, and purposely kept beyond it; where his movable wealth is purposely placed where it may never contribute to the national necessities, and his income is expended for the benefit of a foreign government, and his accumulations go to swell its taxable wealth; and where from all the surrounding circumstances it must be assumed that he has abandoned the United States, and never intends to return to it.

It cannot be contended that a person with so faint an exercise of the duties of citizenship is entitled to claim the protection of this Government as a right.

Each case as it arises must be decided on its own merits. In each the main fact to be determined will be this, has there been such a prac tical expatriation as removes the individual from the jurisdiction of the United States?

If there has not been the applicant will be entitled to protection. Continuous absence from this country does not necessarily presume expatriation. It has always been held to be consistent with a purpose of returning; and in the case of a natural-born citizen, or of a naturalized citizen, so residing in any country, except the country of his nativity, this Department would require its agents to extend the protection of the Government to all citizens, except in the presence of strong affirmative proof of a purpose of expatriation. But when a naturalized citizen returns to his native land to reside, the action of the treaty-making power above referred to would seem to require that such agents be jealous and scrutinizing when he seeks their intervention. Even in such case the purpose of not renouncing the adopted citizenship might be manifested and proved in various ways, such as the payment of an income-tax when such a tax was imposed, the maintenance of a domicile, and the payment of taxes on personal property within the United States, or other affirmative action.

It is the duty of the diplomatic and consular agents of the United States to listen to all facts which may be produced tending to exclude the presumption of expatriation, and to give to them the weight to which in each case they may be entitled.

The particular cases referred to in your dispatch are easily determined on the facts as you state them.

Pepin, the son of a naturalized Frenchman who returned to France and died there, was never in this country. It is alleged that he obtained an American passport from the legation in London some two years since; but it is not produced, and thus leaves him without any

one of the indicia necessary to show an intent on his part to assume the duties of citizenship as well as the privileges granted by the act of

1855.

Excepting the alleged application for the passport in London, it would seem quite possible that, were it not for his desire to avoid the performance of duties required by French law, he would perhaps never have dreamed of calling himself an American, that he would remain in France and avoid all duties to the United States, that he would call himself a citizen of the United States and avoid all duties to France.

In the other case, an American, whose name is withheld, has lived with his family forty years in France, has reared his children there, has never proposed to return to the United States, and his children have never been to the United States, and never expect to go, and never want to

go.

In each of these cases there is a presumption of a purpose of expatriation so strong that, until it can be rebutted to your satisfaction, you will be justified in concluding that the persons respectively are not entitled to your intervention to protect them against the operation of the laws of the country which they have selected as their place of residence. I am, &c.,

HAMILTON FISH.

No. 837.]

No. 114.

Mr. Hoffman to Mr. Fish.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

Paris, July 24, 1873. (Received August 7.) SIR Referring to your dispatch No. 510, of June 21, I have the honor to inform you that I called to-day upon the Duke de Broglie, and communicated to him verbally the views of the President upon the subject of the joint action of the western powers in Japan.

M. de Broglie said that he entered entirely into the views of the United States Government, that the western powers should have a common action; that one should not separate itself from the others with a view to any special advantage, but that they should "press with a common weight" upon countries like Japan; that he must ask for a few days for reflection before taking action in the matter, but that his present impression was very decided to give instruction to the ministers of France at Rome and in Japan in the sense suggested in your dispatch. Referring to Mr. Washburne's dispatch 'No. 821, I have the honor to inform the Department that M. de Broglie stated to me this morning that the French government had no objection whatever to the extension of the jurisdiction of the consul-general of the United States in France over Algeria.

Mr. Washburne went to England yesterday, to be absent four or five days.

I have, &c.,

WICKHAM HOFFMAN.

No. 840.J

No. 115.

Mr. Washburne to Mr. Fish.

[Extract.]

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

Paris, July 31, 1873. (Received August 16.) SIR: The national assembly finally adjourned on Tuesday last until the 5th day of November next. The last days were strictly devoted to important legislation. One of the last acts of the body was to repeal the law which provided for the surtax on foreign shipping. The prompt action which our Government took on that subject contributed very much to the repeal.

President McMahon sent a message to the assembly on the eve of the adjournment, which has been very well received.

I send you a copy of the message, as well as some comments thereon by journals on opposite sides. There is now a profound political calm throughout all France.

*

I have, &c.,

E. B. WASHBURNE.

[Inclosure 1.]

Prorogation of the French Assembly.

VERSAILLES, July 29.

In to-day's sitting of the assembly the treaties of commerce with England and Belgium were adopted after a short debate.

The Duke de Broglie then read the message of Marshal MacMahon, proroguing the session.

The text of the message was as follows:

"The national assembly has decided to suspend its labors for a few months. It may take its departure without uneasiness, for I venture to assure it that nothing will occur in its absence to endanger the maintenance of public order. The legitimate authority of the assembly will be every where respected, and I shall insure this with the co-operation of the ministers whom I have chosen from among you. It is a matter of congratulation to me to see that the ministry is honored with your confidence. The harmony so desirable between the government and the assembly, even during the short space of time which has elapsed since you placed the government in my hands, has already produced the happiest results. Owing to this union, important laws have been voted almost without debate. I place first among them the law which assures the defense of the country in giving a definitive organization to the army, which a few days since you greeted with your acclamations. When you re-assemble, a great event, impatiently expected, will have been accomplished. The foreign occupation will have ceased. The eastern departments, which have so nobly paid their debt to the country, since they were the first victims of the war, and the last pledges of peace, will at length be released from the trial they have heroically supported. We shall no longer see on French territory any other than a French army. This inestimable benefit is the common work of the patriotism of all. My predecessor powerfully contributed by successful negotiations to prepare the way for it. You aided him in his task by affording him your support which never failed him, and now a prudent and firm policy which permits the development of public wealth will rapidly efface the traces of our disasters. Finally, it is our laborious population who have above all contributed to hasten their own liberation by their readiness to accept the heaviest burdens. France on that great day will testify her gratitude to all who have served her, but in the expression of her patriotic joy she will observe the moderation which befits her dignity. She would, I am sure, rebuke noisy manifestations, little suited to her memory of the grievous sacrifices which were the cost of peace. That peace, so dearly bought, is our first necessity. Our firm resolution is to.maintain it and place France in complete possession of herself. France will be better capable, even than before, of maintaining with all foreign powers sincerely friendly relations. These feelings are reciprocal on their part, and of this I daily receive formal assurance. Such is the fruit of the wise line of conduct, which the assembly, forgetting internal differences to think only of the

country's general interests, have several times confirmed by its unanimous vote. You will approve me in continuing this policy."

The passage of the message alluding to the successful negotiations for the liberation of the territory conducted by M. Thiers was received with applause by the Left. At the conclusion of the message there were repeated rounds of applause from the Right and the two Centers. The assembly is prorogued until the 5th of November.

No. 116.

Marquis de Noailles to Mr. Fish.

[Translation.]

LEGATION OF FRANCE,

Washington, January 10, 1873. (Received January 11.)

MR. SECRETARY OF STATE: I have the honor to transmit to your excellency the inclosed dispatch, which has just been sent to me by the minister of foreign affairs of the French Republic.

The French section, which has been intrusted by the international meter commission with the preparation of the standard meters and kilograms which will be needed by the various governments represented in said commission, desires to know how many of these standards it must have made. The minister of agriculture and commerce therefore wishes to know the number of meters, both with and without subdivisions, as also the number of kilograms of iridized platinum which the Government of the United States requires.

The price of a cubic meter will probably not exceed four thousand francs, nor that of a kilogram fifteen hundred francs.

I shall be happy, Mr. Secretary of State, to place myself at the service of your excellency in order to transmit the reply which it may please your excellency to make on this subject to the department of foreign affairs of France.

Be pleased to accept, Mr. Secretary of State, the assurances of my very high consideration.

MARQUIS DE NOAILLES.

Count De Rémusat to Marquis de Noailles.

[Translation.]

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

DIVISION OF CONSULATES AND COMMERCIAL AFFAIRS,

Versailles, December 6, 1872.

SIR: The French section, which has been intrusted by the international meter commission with the preparation of the standard meters and kilograms which will be needed by the various governments represented in said commission, desires to know how many of these standards it must have made.

I will therefore thank you, sir, to enable me to comply with the request addressed to me by the minister of agriculture and commerce, by informing me as soon as possible of the number of meters, both with and without subdivisions, and also of the number of kilograms of iridized platinum which will be required by the Federal Government.

The price of a meter will probably not exceed, all expenses included, the sum of 4,000 francs, and the price of a kilogram will probably not exceed 1,500 francs. M. Teisserem de Bat adds that the sums whereby payment is to be made for standards must be placed at the disposal of the French government, so that the orders for payment may be delivered by the minister of cominerce according to the method adopted for the expenses hitherto incurred by the meter commission.

Receive, sir, &c.,

REMUSAT.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »