Germany. "If Karl Klingenmeyer's father [a native of Germany who had been naturalized in the United States] was at the time of his son's birth a citizen of this country [the United States], the son was such a citizen, while possibly by the German law (which I have not at hand) he might also be a citizen of the place of his birth [Germany]. On general principles such conflicting citizenship is decided according to the laws of the one of the two countries claiming allegiance within whose jurisdiction the individual happens to be. (Vol. 13, Opinions Attorneys-General, p. 89.)" Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Kasson, min. to Germany, Jan. 15, 1885, For. Rel. 1885, 396, 398. Mexico. "The two sons of Mr. Smith [a citizen of the United States who had been naturalized in Mexico], aged respectively seven and ten years at the time of their father's death, were undoubtedly American citizens by birth, inasmuch as the father's change of allegiance occurred after the birth of the youngest child. If within the jurisdiction of the United States, their right to American citizenship would be unimpaired, and even if within Mexican jurisdiction during minority, they would, in the absence of any Mexican law specifically attaching the altered status of the father to his minor children within Mexican jurisdiction, be still properly regarded as American citizens. But if there be such a law, or if on attaining majority they remain in Mexico and come within any provision of Mexican law making them citizens of that Republic, they could not be regarded as citizens of the United States. The registration of the younger son, by the widowed mother, after the death of the father, although irregularly and unnecessarily delayed, is in contravention of no rule, the child's citizenship at birth being clear." Mr. F. W. Seward, Acting Sec. of Stafe, to Mr. Foster, min. to Mexico, As the Mexican law "does not make such a minor [i. e., a child born in See, also. Mr. F. W. Seward. Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Noyes, No. 115, "The Russian naturalization law of March 6, 1864, A. 12, provides: Children born of foreigners not Russian subjects, born and educated in Russia, or, if born abroad, yet who have completed their education in a Russian upper or middle Russia. school, will be admitted to Russian allegiance should they desire to do so within the succeeding year after they shall have attained their majority.' "This provision appears to be permissive, not compulsory, and to contemplate that persons born in Russia of alien parents, may, under certain specified circumstances, make election of Russian citizenship, and thereupon be admitted to such citizenship by some formal act of naturalization. "The precedents you have examined would seem to have led you into the misapprehension that the theory of dual allegiance during minority is involved, requiring formal option between two conflicting claims. This is, indeed, the case according to the municipal law of certain countries. "The French rule is typical, and under it a person born in France of alien parents and domiciled in France at the time of reaching majority, is allowed one year after attaining majority to elect to retain the citizenship of his parents. In default of so doing at the expiration of that period, and if retaining French domicil, he is to be deemed a citizen of France.' (Foreign Relations, 1891, pp. 493, 494.) 66 The contrast between the two rules is clear. In France, upon the expiration of the probationary year following majority, the domiciled alien loses his right to elect the status of his parents. In Russia, as explained to you by the Russian minister, if the election of Russian citizenship be not availed of within the prescribed year, the person loses his right to become a Russian subject. "The law of the United States does not, as you seem to suppose, provide for option of American citizenship by persons situated as you represent the Powers brothers to be circumstanced. By section 1993 of the Revised Statutes the children born abroad to citizens of the United States are declared to be citizens,' with the sole exception that such citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States. The precedents you quote contemplate recognition of a formal option, only in the cases where a conflict of laws arises under the legislation of the foreign country of birth and sojourn. In Russia, however, it appears that such conflict does not arise, and that in the event of not acquiring Russian status in the permitted way, the persons in question will be regarded after attaining majority as lawful citizens of the United States." Mr. Adee, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Coombs, min. to Japan, April 28, 1893, For. Rel. 1893, 401. Mr. Coombs, in a dispatch of March 21, 1893, to which Mr. Adee's instruction is a reply, pointed out, as the result of a consultation with his Russian colleague, an error in the translation of the foregoing pro 1 vision of the Russian law, as printed in the Report of the British Royal Commission of 1869 on Naturalization and Allegiance, and reprinted in For. Rel. 1873, II. 1288. (For. Rel. 1893, 393.) 2. NATIVE-BORN CHILDREN. (1) DOUBLE ALLEGIANCE BY BIRTH. § 428. An application having been made for a passport for a youth of seventeen, whose father desired to send him to Germany as a student, the Department of State said: "The young man referred to, under the Constitution of the United States, having been born in this country, is, while subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, a citizen of the United States notwithstanding the fact of his father being an alien. As such citizen he is entitled to a passport. This, of course, would be a sufficient protection to him in every other country but that of his father's origin-Germany. There, of course, as the son of a German subject, it may be claimed that he is subject to German military law, and that, not being then subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, he can not claim the rights secured to him by the 14th amendment to the Constitution. It is proper, therefore, that I should add, in the interest of young Mr. J -, that it will be perilous for him to visit Germany at present." Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. O'Neill, M. C., Aug. 8, 1882, 143 See, to the same effect, Mr. Hunter, Second Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. In Sept., 1878, M. S., the wife of J. A., of the canton of Luzerne, Switzerland, came to the United States with Joseph H., also a Switzer. In April, 1879, she gave birth to a son, who was baptized as the son of Joseph H. Meanwhile, divorce proceedings were instituted in Switzerland by J. A., who obtained a decree of divorce from M. S., in contumaciam, shortly after the birth of the son. In August, 1880, M. S. died, and Joseph II. took the child to his home, in the canton of Aargau, Switzerland. The Swiss Federal Council held that the child was a citizen of Luzerne, presumably because it was born before the decree of divorce was granted. The canton of Luzerne, however, suggested that the child was a citizen of the United States, and the question was referred to the American legation, with a view to the issuance of a passport to the child as an American citizen. The legation declined to issue a passport, and its action was approved. Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cramer, No. 36, June 4, 1883, "I have received your No. 418, of the 8th ultimo, respecting an application for a passport made by Ludwig Henckel, who states he was born in St. Louis, Mo., January 10, 1874. He was taken in 1875 to Venezuela by his father, who claims to have previously declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and who, on January 13, 1882, was appointed consular agent of the United States at San Cristobal, Venezuela. After thirty years' absence, the father returned to Hanover, his native city, taking the son with him. The latter, it appears, is now serving an apprenticeship at Hamburg, and at its expiration, three years hence, ' declares it to be his intention to return to America to reside.' "Notwithstanding the alienage of the father the son is by birth a citizen of the United States. His absence from the country during minority and while under the control of his father should not be counted too strongly against him, especially in view of the fact that he declares his intention of returning to this country to reside after the completion of his apprenticeship. If he will take the necessary oath to that effect he would seem to come substantially within this rule and a passport may be issued to him. In issuing him a passport, however, it is proper that the legation should inform him that it does not guarantee him against any claim which may be asserted to his allegiance or service by the Government of Germany while he remains in that country. Having been born of a German father, conflicting claims with respect thereto may arise, which it is not the purpose of this Government by the issuance of a passport to in anywise prejudice." Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Phelps, min. to Germany, May 3, 1892, Similar views were expressed in the case of Alexander Block, id. 184, The child born to an alien in the United States loses his citizenship on leaving the United States and returning to his parent's allegiance. (Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. O'Neill, Nov. 15, 1881-139 MS. Dom. Let. 572.) While a person born in the United States, though of alien parents, is by the laws thereof a citizen, yet, should he be taken by his parents while a minor to the country of which they are subjects, he becomes amenable to the laws of that country and subject to a claim of allegiance thereunder jure sanguinis. On this ground the Department of State refused to issue a passport for the protection of a minor, born in the United States, whose parents proposed to return with him "for a brief period" to the country (Russia) of which they were subjects. Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Seely, March 9, 1893, 190 MS. Dom. On the other hand, a passport was issued to a minor, born in the United States, whose father had been naturalized as a Russian subject, with a warning that he too might be regarded by the Russian Government as its subject should he voluntarily enter that country. (Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Foote, Jan. 14, 1894, 200 MS. Dom. Let. 247.) O. H. R., was born in Baltimore, Md., August 21, 1860, of German parents, who four years later returned to Germany, taking him with them. He remained in Germany till 1881, when he was examined for military service, and, being found then to be unfit for it, was ordered to appear the next year. He then left for America, where he had since resided. The Department of State said: "Upon this state of facts you are under our laws a citizen of the United States, by reason of your birth in this country, but by the German law you are a subject of Germany. Should you voluntarily place yourself again within German jurisdiction, this Government would not be warranted in intervening to protect you from trial and punishment for violation of the military laws of that country." Mr. Uhl, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Rudolph, May 22, 1895, 202 MS. Dom. Roberto J. J. Pinto was born of Costa Rican parents at San Francisco, |