No. 84.] PASSPORT APPLICATION OF ARMIN FREIMAN. Mr. McCormick to Mr. Hay. UNITED STATES LEGATION, SIR: I have the honor to lay before the Department of State and ask its instructions in the case of one Armin Freiman, the facts in which are as follows: Freiman was born at Kis Szeben, Sáros County, Hungary, on or about the 23d day of March, 1877, emigrated to the United States on board the Maasdam sailing from Rotterdam on or about the 28th June, 1893, and resided uninterruptedly at Pittsburg, in the state of Pennsyl vania, from that time until the year 1900, and was naturalized as a citizen of the United States before the district court of the United States of America in and for the western district of Pennsylvania, as shown by his certificate of naturalization issued to him by that court on the 23d day of March, 1900. On the 28th July following he left the United States, having remained long enough to become naturalized and so escape the military service required by the laws of the country of his birth. He is now sojourning at the place of his birth and has been for the past two years, and, like many others, in my judgment, having accomplished the purpose of becoming naturalized as an American citizen, namely, escaped liability to military service as above indicated, has no fixed intention of ever returning to the United States. Technically Freiman may be entitled to a passport, but it seems to me that one should not be issued to him unless he can show evidence of a bona fide intention to return there within two years, as he states in his application. I ask for instructions, not only for my guidance in this case, but in other similar ones where circumstantial evidence justifies the belief that the applicant has gone to the United States and become naturalized as a citizen thereof only with the purpose of escaping military service in the land of his birth, whither he returns as soon as this object can be accomplished, thus evading his duties as a citizen of the country of his birth and the country of his adoption. I have, etc., ROBERT S. MCCORMICK. Mr. Hay to Mr. McCormick. No. 50.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: Your No. 84 of the 23d ultimo, relative to the application of Armin Freiman for a passport, has been received. The case does not, as it appears to the Department, call for special instructions, being adequately covered by the general principles laid down in previous instructions and especially in the circular instruction of March 27, 1899, wherein it was stated: This Government does not discriminate between native-born and naturalized citizens in according them protection while they are abroad, equality of treatment being required by the laws of the United States (secs. 1999 and 2000, Rev. Stats.). But in determining the question of conservation of American citizenship and the right to receive a passport it is only reasonable to take into account the purpose for which the citizenship is obtained. A naturalized citizen who returns to the country of his origin and there resides without any tangible manifestation of an intention to return to the United States may therefore generally be assumed to have lost the right to receive the protection of the United States. * It is not to be understood by this that naturalized American citizens returning to the country of their origin are to be refused the protection of a passport. On the contrary, full protection should be accorded them until they manifest an effectual abandonment of their residence and domicile in the United States. * * * * * The treatment of the individual cases as they arise must depend largely upon attendant circumstances. When an applicant has completely severed his relations with the United States, has neither kindred nor property here, has married and established a home in a foreign land, has engaged in business or professional pursuits wholly in foreign countries, has so shaped his plans as to make it impossible or improbable that they will ever include a domicile in this country, these and similar circumstances should exercise an adverse influence in determining the question whether or not a passport should issue. It appears that Freiman lived in the United States seven years and that he returned to Austria less than two years ago. Whether he has manifested in this brief period an effectual abandonment of his home in the United States is a matter which the legation must decide, weighing all the circumstances of the case with great care. SIR: I have the honor to submit to the Department the case of one Mr. Harry Frommer, a native citizen of the United States, who has applied to this embassy for a renewal of his passport. The facts are as follows: 1. Harry Frommer, whose father was a naturalized citizen of the United States of Austro-Hungarian origin, was born at New York City, in the State of New York, on the 29th day of May, 1869. He last left the United States in June, 1892, the bearer of passport No. 36444, issued by the Secretary of State on the 2d day of April, 1892. 2. On the 3d day of April, 1894, Mr. Frommer applied to and was granted by this mission a new passport, No. 449, stating in his application for same that he intended to return to the United States within six months." 3. On the 8th day of May, 1896, Mr. Frommer was granted a new passport, No. 668, by this mission, for himself and his wife, Thekla, born at Krakan, Galicia, where the said Frommer has continued to live for the past ten years. 4. On the 28th day of July, 1898, a third passport, No. 952, was issued to Mr. Frommer by this mission. 5. On the 28th day of September, 1900, Mr. Frommer was granted a fourth passport, No. 232, by this mission, he then declaring in his application for same that he intended to return to the United States within one and one-half years, or as soon as he had disposed of his hat business in Krakau. Yesterday, for the fifth time, Mr. Frommer presented himself at this mission, requesting a renewal of his passport. Upon being questioned in regard to his intention of returning to the United States with the purpose of residing and performing the duties of citizenship therein, he practically stated that his business as a hatter at Krakau being in better shape he had no intention of ever leaving this Empire. Pending instructions from the Department of State I therefore refused to renew his passport in accordance with the latter part of paragraph 150 of "Instructions to diplomatic officers of the United States," which reads as follows: The granting of a passport should also be withheld pending the instructions of the Department where the applicant, whether native or naturalized, has resided without the United States for a long period of time under such circumstances as to warrant the inference that he has practically abandoned his country. In all such cases the facts should be fully reported to the Department for further instructions. Mr. Frommer's original passport, No. 36444, issued by the Secretary of State on the 2d day of April, 1892, and first above referred to, is inclosed herewith, having been found with the duplicate of his first application to this mission for renewal of same on the 3d day of April, 1894. I have, etc., CHANDLER HALE, Chargé d'Affaires ad interim. Mr. Hay to Mr. Hale. No. 75.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, November 19, 1902. SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 30, of October 30, 1902, reporting your refusal to renew passport in the case of Harry Frommer, a native-born citizen of the United States. It appears that Mr. Frommer, whose father was a naturalized citizen of the United States of Austro-Hungarian origin, was born in the city of New York; that he left the United States in June, 1892, the bearer of passport No. 36444, issued by the Department April 2, 1892; that in 1894 he applied to the United States mission in Vienna for a renewal of his passport, which was granted, he stating in his applica tion that he intended "to return to the United States in six months." It appears further that in 1896 he was granted a new passport by the United States legation for himself and his wife, born at Krakau, Galicia, where the said Frommer has continued to live for the past ten years; that on July 28, 1898, a third passport from the same source was issued to Mr. Frommer, and that in 1900 he was granted a fourth passport, he declaring on this occasion that he intended to return to the United States within one and a half years," or 66 as soon as he had disposed of his hat business." Finally, you report, for the fifth time Mr. Frommer presented himself at the embassy, requesting a renewal of his passport, and that upon being questioned in regard to his intention of returning to the United States with the purpose of residing and performing the duties of citizenship therein, he stated practically that his business as a hatter at Krakau being in better shape he had no intention of ever leaving Europe. 66 Your course in withholding a passport in this case is approved by the Department. Mr. Frommer comes within the category of those of whom the Department's circular instruction of March 27, 1899, said: When an applicant (for a passport) has completely severed his relations with the United States, has neither kindred nor property here, has married and established a home in a foreign land, has engaged in business or professional pursuits wholly in foreign countries; has so shaped his plans as to make it impossible or improbable that they will ever include a domicile in this country-these and similar circumstances should exercise an adverse influence in determining the question whether or not a passport should issue. I am, etc., JOHN HAY. BELGIUM. FINE ON BELGIAN STEAMSHIP BELGIKA IN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. Count Lichtervelde to Mr. Hay. [Translation.] LEGATION OF BELGIUM, Washington, March 11, 1901. MR. SECRETARY OF STATE: Under instructions of my Government I have the honor to submit to your excellency's favorable consideration the inclosed reclamation of the Compagnie Générale des Philippines pour le Développement du Commerce et de l'Industrie, a Belgian corporation legally recognized in the Philippines. That letter sets forth the facts as well as the reasons which, according to the parties in interest, justify the refundment of the fine. I eagerly take this opportunity, Mr. Secretary of State, to present to your excellency the renewed assurances of my highest consideration. LICHTERVELDE. [Inclosure-Translation.] COMPAGNIE GÉNÉRALE DES PHILIPPINES POUR LE MR. MINISTER: The board of directors of the Compagnie Générale des Philippines pour le Développement due Commerce et de l'Industrie, a Belgian corporation with headquarters at Brussels, 168 Rue Royale, but duly registered and legally recognized as a corporation in the Philippines, where it has complied with all the requirements of the law of that country regarding its registration, respectfully represents as follows: First. The company holds a large interest in various navigation concerns in the Philippine Islands. Some of the vessels under consideration sail under the American flag, but it is none the less true that they represent for the greater part Belgian interest and capital. Second. Under a contract signed in duplicate at Manila on the 19th of March, 1900, one of those vessels, the Belgika, 462 tons register, No. 272 of Lloyds' Register of British and Foreign Shipping, was chartered to the Philippine firm Mendoza & Co., of Manila, for a trip from Manila to Iloilo, Cebu, and any other port in the island of Leyte at the time open to navigation by the American authorities, and back to Manila. Third. That it appears from the explanation made by the charterers that the aforesaid steamer in the course of her voyage entered the port of Indang on her way from Baybay (Bag-Bag), that she cleared for Indang with her papers in perfect order and after securing from the military commander of the district in which the port of Indang lies (island of Leyte) the authorization to proceed to that port. That the steamer Belgika entered the port of Indang flying the American flag at her mainmast and that the master caused a white flag to be hoisted at the foremast in order to give evidence to the authorities and people of the place that his intentions were entirely peaceful and that his ship was neither an American war vessel nor the property of insurgents; that all this, according to the charterers, was lawful. |