evinced a permanent attachment to the State by having intermarried with a citizen of this Commonwealth or a citizen of any other of the United States, or purchased lands to the value of one hundred pounds therein. (Report of the Naturalization Commission, Appendix A).

The effect of naturalization in the several States before the Constitution was adopted was, therefore, to remove alienage, the person naturalized standing in all respects upon the same plane with a natural-born citizen, except that he was under certain removable political disabilities.

The same principle was applied in constructing the Constitution and in the debates in the Constitutional Convention no one proposed any other principle. Gouverneur Morris said "he would let them (naturalized citizens) worship at the same altar (with native citizens), but he did not choose to make priests of them" (Madison's Writings, IV, 159). and this was the sentiment which finally resulted in the provision that the President must be a natural-born citizen (Art. II, sec. 1), and that no one shall be a Representative who has not been a citizen for seven years (Art. I, sec. 2) or a Senator who has not zens. (The American Passport, p. 77.)

Before the Constitution was adopted passports for the protection of Americans proceeding abroad were issued by the governors or presidents of the several States. There can be no doubt that they described the holders as citizens of the State issuing the passport, and that they were given to naturalized as well as native citizens. The passports issued by the Secretary of State since 1789 have always stated that the persons described were citizens of the United States, and have never stated whether they were native or naturalized citizens. (The American Passport, p. 77).

When the question of the impressment of American seamen, many of whom were naturalized citizens, first came up, John Marshall, Secretary of State in John Adams's Administration, said, September 20, 1800, in an instruction to Rufus King, this Government's envoy at London:

With the naturalization of foreigners no other nation can interfere further than the rights of that other are affected, ** consequently those persons who, according to our laws, are citizens, must be so considered by Britain, and by every other power not having a conflicting claim to the person. (MS. Instructions.)

In relation to the same question Secretary Monroe wrote to the British minister, May 30, 1812:

Your proffered exertions to procure the discharge of native American citizens from on board British ships of war, of which you desire a list, has not escaped attention. It is impossible for the United States to discriminate between their native and naturalized citizens, nor ought your Government to expect it, as it makes no such discrimination itself. (Qu. Moore's Digest, III, 563.)

Thus Marshall asserted the right of protection, with a reservation that the country of which the person naturalized had formerly been a subject might have a conflicting claim, and Monroe denied the right of such a claim. These two doctrines were repeated from time to time by succeeding executive officers. Henry Wheaton, minister to Prussia, wrote July 24, 1840, to a naturalized American who was in Prussia, the country of his origin:

Had you remained in the United States or visited any other foreign country (except Prussia) on your lawful business, you would have been protected by the American authorities, at home and abroad, in the enjoyment of all your

rights and privileges as a naturalized citizen of the United States. But, having returned to the country of your birth, your native domicil and national character revert (so long as you remain in the Prussian dominions), and you are bound in all respects to obey the laws exactly as if you had never emigrated. (Qu. Moore's Digest, III, 564.)

On the other hand Attorney-General J. S. Black said in 1859:

*

What, then, is naturalization? There is no dispute about the meaning of it. The derivation of the word alone makes it plain. All lexicographers and all jurists define it in one way. In its popular, etymological, and legal sense it signifies the act of adopting a foreigner and clothing him with all the privileges of a native citizen or subject. * * * In regard to the protection of our citizens in their rights at home and abroad we have no law which divides them into classes, or makes any difference whatever between them. A native and a naturalized American may, therefore, go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under heaven, including the country in which the latter was born. ** They are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the Government of the United States. One of them never did owe any fealty elsewhere, and the other, at the time of his naturalization, solemnly and rightfully, in pursuance of public law and municipal regulation, threw off, renounced, and abjured forever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, state, and sovereignty whatsoever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject he had previously been. If this did not work a dissolution of every political tie which bound him to his native country then our naturalization laws are a bitter mockery, and the oath we administer to foreigners is a delusion and a snare.

There have been, and are now, persons of very high reputation who hold that a naturalized citizen ought to be protected by the government of his adopted country everywhere, except in the country of his birth; but if he goes there, or is caught within the power of his native sovereign, his act of naturalization may be treated as a mere nullity, and he will immediately cease to have the rights of an American citizen. This can not be true. It has no foundation to rest upon (and its advocates do not pretend that it has any), except the dogma which denies altogether the right of expatriation without the consent of his native country, and that is untenable, as I think I have already shown. * * The application of these principles to the case of any naturalized citizen who returns to his native country is simple and easy enough. He is liable, like everybody else, to be arrested for a debt or a crime, but he can not rightfully be punished for the mere nonperformance of a duty which is supposed to grow out of that allegiance which he has abjured and renounced. If he was a deserter from the army he may be punished when he goes back, because desertion is a crime. On the other hand, if he was not actually in the army at the time of his emigration, but merely liable, like other members of the state, to be called on for his share of military duty, which he did not perform because he left the country before the time for its performance came round, he can not justly be molested. (9 Op. At. Gen., 359 et seq.)

Congress finally settled the question in favor of the position set forth in Mr. Black's opinion by passing the law quoted at the beginning of this section.

The immediate occasion which called forth the law was the arrest of certain naturalized citizens by the authorities of their parent countries, chiefly the German States, for nonperformance of military service, and numerous arrests of naturalized citizens of Irish origin in the United Kingdom charged with crimes of a political character. At the time these arrests were made the doctrine of indefeasible allegiance stood as the British doctrine, although it was not always strictly observed, and the continental States insisted that their allegiance could not be thrown off without their permission. Allowing for the heat occasioned in the United States by the nature of the arrests, the action of Congress, nevertheless, rested upon a welldefined and not ephemeral popular demand, was taken with deliberation and with unanimous agreement on the principle involved, and

must be considered a final expression of national policy. Hundreds of petitions requesting the legislation were sent to Congress.

The legislature of Maine passed the following:

Resolved, That it has always been the American doctrine that a citizen of one country may expatriate himself and transfer his allegiance to any other; and that the naturalized citizens of the United States are entitled to the same rights and protection. in the lawful pursuits of life, as native citizens, whether at home or abroad.

Resolved, That the United States should insist upon a recognition of these rights in its intercourse with all other governments.

Resolved, That wherever the American doctrine is denied and the rights of naturalized citizens are violated thereby, it should be regarded as an offense against the United States, and that justice and honor alike demand that the Executive of the Government should take immediate and efficient measures to restore such naturalized citizens to all the rights and privileges belonging to native-born citizens. (H. Mis. Doc. No. 59, 40th Cong., 2d sess., Vol. 1, 1867-68.)

The legislature of Wisconsin resolved

That no distinction should be tolerated between native born and duly naturalized citizens of the United States in regard to their immunities and privileges in foreign countries, and that a naturalized citizen of the United States temporarily sojourning within the dominions of his former sovereign, can only be compelled to enter the military service or otherwise support the Government of such former sovereign to the same extent and under the same circumstances as might be required of a native born American citizen thus temporarily domiciled in such foreign country. (H. Mis. Doc. No. 60, 40th Cong., 2d sess., Vol. 1, 1867-68.)

The legislature of Maryland called upon Congress to pass

such laws as honor, justice, and the true policy of the country demand in fully securing to all naturalized citizens the same rights of person and property. both at home and abroad, which are now possessed by the native born. (Id., Doc. No. 75.)

The able and exhaustive report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House, through Hon. N. P. Banks, the chairman (Reports of Committees, No. 1 to No. 46, 2d sess. 40th Cong.; Report No. 13, H. R.), and the debates in the Senate and House, which covered a wide range and were participated in by all the leading Senators and Representatives, left no doubt of agreement on the great point of the right of absolute equality of protection of naturalized and native Americans, while in foreign states.

For the purpose of obtaining full information for intelligent guidance in proposing improvements in our laws concerning expatriation and the protection of American citizens abroad, on July 9, 1906, a circular was sent to the diplomatic and certain consular officers of the United States asking for reports on the following subjects:

1. The laws relating to citizenship in the country in which you reside; 2. The means by which citizenship in that country is lost;

3. Whether or not the law of that country authorizes the renunciation of citizenship; and if so, the conditions for the reacquisition of the citizenship thus renounced;

4. Whether, and how far, residence in foreign parts may affect the citizenship of origin;

5. And finally, the practice of the Government to which you are accredited in protecting its citizens permanently residing in other countries.

The law relating to naturalization and the acquisition of citizenship is also desired.

The reports received in reply to this circular have been carefully read, their contents duly considered, and the dispatches, with their inclosures, filed for future reference in the archives of the Department

of State under the title: "Reports of diplomatic and certain consular officers in reply to Department's circular regarding citizenship of July 9, 1906." For convenience of reference their more important contents are herewith furnished in the form of an appendix to this report.

The policy of the United States regarding the right of voluntary expatriation and the equal protection of American citizens abroad being fixed in its history and statutes, the chief value of information regarding the laws and practices of other nations lies in the indications that may be thus obtained of the methods by which our principles may be made more effective.

The subject of most vital interest to the United States in connection with questions of citizenship is the attitude of foreign governments with regard to the nature and duration of the relationship between a subject or citizen and his government. This attitude varies widely in different countries. In some the relationship of the individual to his government is regarded as capable of alteration only with the express permission of the sovereign. In the greatest number of cases, however, the right of voluntary expatriation is admitted, and the relationship is supposed to cease whenever the subject or citizen renounces the old and assumes a new allegiance.

The various attitudes of governments upon this subject may be summarized under the following six types:

A. The right of voluntary expatriation is wholly denied. A subject has no right to leave the territory of his origin without the express permission of his sovereign; he may not renounce his original allegiance or assume another, and upon his return to the jurisdiction of his origin he is liable to arrest and punishment. (For example, this is the attitude of Russia and Turkey.)

B. The right of expatriation is admitted, provided there exists at the time no unperformed obligation to military service; but, in case this obligation exists, naturalization in a foreign country obtained before it is discharged is considered as void. (For example, this is the attitude of France.)

C. The right of expatriation is admitted, but naturalization in a foreign country does not become valid from the point of view of the country of origin without an express and formal renunciation of the original citizenship made in the country of origin and in accordance with its forms of law. (For example, this is the attitude of Switzerland.)

D. The right of expatriation is admitted, but, while naturalization abroad is freely allowed, in case of a return to the country of origin the person thus naturalized is not denied the rights of citizenship in that country, but is permitted without further formality to retain his rights as a citizen as if he had never departed from the country. (For example, this is the attitude of Venezuela.)

E. The right of expatriation is admitted, and citizenship absolutely ceases (although it may afterwards be legally recovered) at the moment when the act of naturalization in a foreign country is performed. (This is the attitude of the majority of foreign governments.)

F. The right of expatriation is admitted and is assumed to have been accomplished when a citizen absents himself from the parent.

country for a prolonged period of years. (For example, this is the attitude of the Netherlands.)

In view of the diverse conditions which are imposed by the laws of foreign countries, no general legislation on the part of the United States can of itself secure the equal treatment of naturalized American citizens everywhere.

The announcement by Congress of a principle does not involve an acceptance of the principle by other governments, this being obtainable only by treaty. As it happened, the passage of the act of July 17, 1868, was followed by the enactment of a new law by the British Parliament (33 Vict., ch. 14) recognizing the right of expatriation of British subjects; and even before the passage of the act of July 17, 1868, a treaty was perfected by which the North German Confederation agreed to recognize as Americans former Germans who had secured our naturalization (May 27, 1868). Soon afterwards similar treaties were made with Bavaria (October 8, 1868), with Belgium (July 30, 1869), with Hesse (August 31, 1869), with Baden (January 10, 1870), with Wurttemberg (March 7, 1870), with Great Britain (September 16, 1870, and May 5, 1871), with AustriaHungary (August 1, 1871), with Norway and Sweden (January 12, 1872), and with Denmark (April 15, 1873). (Van Dyne on Citizenship, p. 327 et seq.)

Article 1 of the treaty with the North German Confederation says:

Citizens of the North German Confederation who become naturalized citizens of the United States of America and shall have resided uninterruptedly within the United States five years shall be held by the North German Confederation to be American citizens, and shall be treated as such.

The substance of this article is repeated in the treaties with Austria-Hungary, Baden, Bavaria, Hesse, Sweden and Norway, and Wurttemberg. The treaty with Belgium says:

Reciprocally, Belgians who may or who shall have been naturalized in the United States will be considered by Belgium as citizens of the United States. And this form is followed in the treaties with Denmark and Great Britain also, the only difference between these treaties and the others cited here being in the omission of the requirement of five years' residence. This difference was never important, as the class of persons who might be naturalized before residing in the United States for five years was never numerous and is now extremely small.

The United States has no naturalization treaties with the following countries of Europe: France, Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal. Roumania, Russia, Servia, Spain, Switzerland, and Turkey.

The present time seems to be appropriate for renewing efforts to obtain such treaties with these and other powers. The new naturalization law places naturalization more completely in the control of the Federal Government than it has been heretofore. It creates a naturalization division in the Department of Commerce and Labor, to which returns of all naturalizations are required to be made, and which has supervision over all naturalizations. Fraudulent and improper naturalizations will, it is confidently believed, be extremely rare in the future. The law also provides that no one shall be naturalized who does not intend to reside permanently in the United States, and the complaint which was formerly made, and which was not without foundation. that foreigners secured our naturalization