with the military authorities on return to their native land, to visit or otherwise, I have the honor to make the following brief summary of each case, which summary can be amplified at any time in the future should occasion demand. Joseph Knopp, a naturalized American citizen of Austro-Hungarian origin, emigrated to the United States in March, 1892, while a member of the Austro-Hungarian army reserve, but subsequent to the performance of his full military service. He became naturalized at San Antonio, Tex., in November, 1897, and is now a sergeant in Company A, Eighteenth Regiment of the United States Army. He left the United States in March, 1901, on a six-months' furlough, returning to visit his parents at Stisburg, and was arrested one month after his arrival and imprisoned on the charge of evasion of military service by the local authorities, despite of the fact that he was the bearer of documents proving his American citizenship. Through the intervention of this legation Knopp was finally released and the case satisfactorily settled. Jacob Friedberg, a naturalized American citizen of Austro-Hungarian origin, emigrated to the United States in 1888, at 12 years of age, before being summoned for military service. He was naturalized in New York City, on May 15, 1899; returned to his former home on a visit in May, 1901, and on the 22d day of that month was arrested by the local authorities for the nonperformance of military service, notwithstanding that he was the bearer of documents proving his American citizenship. Upon Friedberg's appeal to this legation, and through its intervention, he was released and immediately quitted the country without further reporting to the legation. Harry Schmierie, a naturalized American citizen of Austro-Hungarian origin, emigrated to the United States in 1886, at 12 years of age, before being summoned for military service. He was naturalized at Denver, Colo., on October 16, 1896, and returned to his former home in May, 1901. The circumstances in Schmierie's case are nearly identical with those in the Friedberg case, given above, so that for the sake of brevity I refrain from giving them. Michael Tenzer, a naturalized American citizen of Austro-Hungarian origin, emigrated to the United States in 1885, at 16 years of age, before reaching the age of conscription. He was naturalized in New York City in 1890; returned to his former home on a visit to his parents on May 3, 1901; was arrested shortly after his arrival by the local authorities, who immediately released him upon his establishing his American citizenship, but banished him from the district within twenty-four hours thereafter. Tenzer at once came to Vienna and appealed to this legation, through whose intervention the order of banishment against him was set aside. Frank Howrka, a naturalized American citizen of Austro-Hungarian origin, emigrated to the United States in 1882 and became an American citizen through the naturalization of his father in 1887, being at that time under age and then residing in the United States. He returned with his father to his former home in 1893 to look after property in this country, and on April 27, 1901, was enrolled as a recruit in the Austro-Hungarian army, but was finally released through the intervention of this legation. I have no means of knowing, without making direct inquiry, which I could do at any time, whether order of banishment was issued in any case in which the fact is not stated in this summary. In many cases those who appeal to this legation leave the Monarchy while their cases are in process of adjustment, and without again communicating with us, so that we have no means of finding out whether an order of banishment has been transmitted to the local authorities without making specific inquiry at the foreign office. It has not been the custom to make such inquiry, as the object of this legation's intervention has been considered to be attained in most cases on the simple erasure of the names of those who appealed to it from the military rolls. I have, etc., ROBERT S. MCCORMICK. PASSPORT APPLICATION OF MOSES LILIENTHAL. Mr. Mc Cormick to Mr. Hay. No. 38.] UNITED STATES LEGATION, SIR: I have the honor to present to you for your consideration the case of Moses Lilienthal, who has applied to this legation through the United States consul at Budapest, for a passport, and I respectfully ask for the instructions of the Department in this connection. The facts of the case are as follows: 1. Moses Lilienthal was born at Jerusalem, Palestine, on the 19th of January, 1856, and has resided there since the day of his birth. 2. His father was born in the United States, at Louisville, Ky. (how long the father resided in the United States is not mentioned in application), and Lilienthal claims citizenship through native citizenship of parent. 3. He is the bearer of certificate, Form 179, No. 11, issued by the United States consul at Jerusalem on the 29th of January, 1901, and of Turkish passport, which I have the honor to inclose herewith, and respectfully request that they may be returned. 4. He is now temporarily residing at Budapest, Hungary, and declares that he intends to return to the United States (where he has never been) within two years, with the purpose of residing and performing the duties of citizenship therein; and yet in the same application he declares, “I desire the passport for the purpose of traveling in Europe and Asia." In this declaration I have no confidence, circumstantial evidence being entirely against it. It seems to me that the consul at Jerusalem is responsible for issuing Form 179 to Mr. Lilienthal, to be used by him as a passport, contrary to sec. 169 (and 149) of Consular Regulations. For which reasons, pending instructions from the Department, I have declined to issue passport to applicant. I have, etc., FR 1902, PT 1-5 ROBERT S. MCCORMICK. No. 30.] Mr. Hay to Mr. McCormick. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, January 18, 1902. SIR: Your dispatch, No. 38 of the 12th of November, ultimo, asking instructions with regard to issuing a passport upon the application of Moses Lilienthal, has been received. You report that the applicant was born at Jerusalem, Palestine, on January 10, 1856, where he has since resided; that his father was born in the United States (but for what length of time he resided in the United States the application does not state), and that Lilienthal claims citizenship through the native citizenship of his father. You add that Lilienthal is the bearer of a certificate, Form 179, No. 11, issued by the United States consul at Jerusalem, January 29, 1901, which, with Turkish passports, you inclose. You state your belief that the consul at Jerusalem issued the certificate contrary to sections 169 and 149 of the Consular Regulations, and that for this reason, and because you are not convinced of the bona fide intention of the applicant to return to the United States (where he has never been) within two years, you have, pending instructions, declined to issue him a passport. The Department's instruction of August 15, 1894, to Mr. Buchanan, minister at Buenos Aires (Foreign Relations, 1894, p. 19), authorizes a certificate of deposit of a passport. Such a certificate may properly be issued. But in the certificate submitted in this case, and to which you invite attention, the words "deposit of passport and" are struck out in the caption and it reads: "Certificate of registry of a citizen of the United States." As the document contains a description of the holder, and describes him as a son of a citizen who held a passport, it has doubtless served the purpose of a passport for him. It would seem, therefore, to be an improper document. It should have been based upon the deposit of the applicant's passport. It could not properly be based upon the deposit of the passport of the father of the applicant. It is presumed the consul acted upon the theory that the father's citizenship in this case descended to the son, and that the proof of the citizenship was tantamount to the holding of a passport; but the Department may, on occasion, refuse a passport to a person without denying that he may be a citizen of the United States. Your supposition concerning the impropriety of the issuance of the document by the consul at Jerusalem seems to be correct, and an explanation will be invited from him. Your question whether this certificate of registry is not a violation of paragraph 169 of the Consular Regulations, which authorizes withholding a passport from one who has practically abandoned his country, and of paragraph 149, which prohibits the granting of a passport to anyone who is not a citizen of the United States, may be answered in the negative, as the document issued was not a passport. The right of the applicant to receive a passport is another matter. If the father was a citizen of the United States when the son was born, the son was himself born a citizen of the United States. He was, moreover, as it would seem, born in a country in which the United States exercises extra territorial jurisdiction, and where the general principle concerning indefinite residence abroad is not so rigidly applied. Nevertheless, the circumstances of the present case do not seem to entitle the applicant to such exceptional consideration. Born in Jerusalem nearly fifty years ago, Mr. Lilienthal has never been in the United States, and while he declares his intention to come hither within two years, this statement, in your opinion, and in that of the Department so far it is advised, is negatived by the circumstances. Citizenship involves duties on the part of the citizen as well as obligations on the part of the Government. There has been an entire absence of performance of duties of citizenship on the part of the applicant. The fact that he does not become a subject of Turkey does not alter the fact that he is not performing, and never has performed, the duties pertaining to American citizenship. Your action in withholding a passport is approved. Returning the original papers communicated with your despatch, as requested, I am, etc., JOHN HAY. PASSPORT APPLICATION OF THEODOR F. ALEXANDER. No. 82.] Mr. McCormick to Mr. Hay. UNITED STATES LEGATION, SIR: I have the honor to report the following case of application for a passport and to ask the Department's instructions with reference to same. Although of the opinion that I should grant the application in view of an instruction, No. 52, by Mr. Sherman to Mr. Storer, minister at Brussels, and dated November 8, 1897, I ask for the Department's instructions, as it is not a case in which immediate action is necessary. A. M. Alexander, the father of the applicant, Theodor F. Alexander, emigrated to the United States from Prussia, sailing from Hamburg on the 15th day of May, 1854, and resided eighteen years uninterruptedly in the United States to 1872, and was naturalized as a citizen of the United States before the superior court of the city of New York, at New York, on October 1, 1860, as shown by certificate of naturalization presented at this legation. In 1872 he, A. M. Alexander, left the United States and has since that time resided in Europe, having been, until about six years ago, the junior partner in the firm of Alexander Brothers, of New York City, and representing that firm as buyer in Europe, and residing in Dresden until 1876, when he removed to Vienna, which city has been since then and is now his home. He has visited the United States but once since 1872. His son, Theodor F. Alexander, who now applies for a passport, was born in Vienna on April 22, 1881, and has just become of age and declares that it is his intention to go to the United States within two years with the purpose of residing and performing the duties of citizenship therein. He is a student at the University of Vienna and will take his degree in the month of June, 1904, a little over the two years within which he declares that it is his intention to go to the United States, but as I construe the purpose of this declaration and considering the object of the young man's remaining here until June, 1904, it is within the spirit of the regulations. Moreover, A. M. Alexander states that he has three sons who were born in the United States, are now residing, have spent most of their For lives there, and who have undertaken to secure employment for the youngest son, Theodor, on the completion of his studies at the university. I have stated to Mr. A. M. Alexander that, subject to the approval of the Department, I will issue a passport to the son. the further information of the Department and in support of the above I have the honor to inclose herewith a statement of Mr. A. M. Alexander over his signature. I have the honor, etc., ROBERT S. MCCORMICK. [Inclosure.] Statement of A. M. Alexander with reference to his son's application for a passport. With reference to my long residence in Europe, beginning with the year 1872, I have to make the following statement: I was junior partner in the firm of Alexander Brothers, of New York, and I came over to buy goods for that firm, going to Dresden, where I remained for four years, visiting America once in the meantime. In 1876 I removed to Vienna, where I have represented the above firm until about six years ago, when I retired from business, and have not been in America since 1876. My son, Theodor F. Alexander, who was born here in Vienna in 1881, is a student at the Vienna University and will complete his studies and take his degree in June, 1904, when it is his intention, as well as mine, that he shall go to the United States, where his brothers, who were born in the United States and who have spent most of their lives there, have undertaken to secure employment for him. I solemnly declare the above statement to be true, and make it for the purpose of assisting my son to secure a passport. No. 45.] Mr. Hay to Mr. McCormick. A. M. ALEXANDER. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: Your No. 82 of the 7th instant has been received. It appears that Mr. A. M. Alexander, the father of the applicant for a passport, was born in Prussia, was naturalized as a citizen of the United States, and has lived for some years in Europe. His son, Theodor F. Alexander, was born in Vienna in 1881, when his father was receiving the protection of a passport as a citizen of the United States. Section 1993 of the Revised Statutes of the United States says: All children * * born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be ci.izens of the United States. * Atere seems to be no doubt that A. M. Alexander was a citizen of the United States when his son was born, his residence and status after that event need not concern us, as the son would be entitled by reason of his birth to the protection of this Government during his minority and until he can elect another nationality. He has, apparently, elected to remain an American citizen by applying for a passport and demonstrating that it is bona fide his intention to come to the United States to live. There is, as this Department explained in its circular instruction of September 26, 1899, entitled "Passports-Intent to return to the United States," no definite period of time beyond which the protection of a passport is to be refused to a citizen of the United States. Upon the information submitted, therefore, it would appear that Mr. T. F. Alexander is entitled to receive a passport. I am, etc., JOHN HAY. |