origin, who has never been within the jurisdiction of the United States, and who at the time may be dwelling within a foreign jurisdiction. "The Turkish Government has on several occasions permitted the emigration of the wives and children of Turkish subjects who had come to the United States and here acquired citizenship, leaving their families behind them. It has even permitted the emigration of other kinsmen of a degree not within the purview of the naturalization laws of the United States. It has also, asserting a discretionary power in the premises, refused to permit the emigration of the families of naturalized Armenians, even within the marital or filial degree. The good offices of the United States minister are uniformly exerted on all proper occasions to assist the emigration of such persons, upon permission properly secured from the Turkish authorities, and, when funds have been assured to pay the journey, he has assisted their departure. He has likewise assisted the coming to the United States of the wives of citizens of Armenian origin, who, being in this country at or subsequent to the naturalization of their husbands, have returned to Turkey; and of the children of such citizens, born abroad subsequent to the naturalization of the father or who may have acquired American citizenship by actual presence in the United States subsequent to the father's naturalization, and in such instances permission for the families to emigrate has been demanded as of right. These latter instances, however, are relatively few in number compared with the cases in which good offices have been exerted, with varying success, to procure the emigration from the Turkish dominions of the kindred of a naturalized Armenian, including the parents, brothers, and sisters, and even relatives of remoter degree, who could not become citizens of the United States except by individual naturalization." Report of Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to the President, Jan. 22, 1896, in response to an inquiry of the Senate "first, whether naturalized citizens of the United States of Armenian birth are allowed to visit Turkey on business or to visit their families, and whether United States passports held by them are recognized by the Turkish Government; secondly, whether the families of such naturalized citizens residing in Turkey are permitted to leave that country and come to the United States." (S. Doc. 83, 54 Cong. 1 sess.; For. Rel. 1895, II. 1471-1473.) The Department of State declined to solicit permission for the emigration Personal good offices were used in the case of an intended wife. (Mr. It was stated that a request might be made "that permission be granted (Mr. Oct. 16, 1896, the American minister at Constantinople advised his Government that he had obtained a telegraphic order from the Turkish Government to permit the departure for the United States, with safe-conduct to the seaport, of all the native Armenian women and children in whose behalf he had made application, whose husbands and fathers were in the United States. The Department of State replied that the humane and considerate action of the Turkish Government in the matter was "most cordially appreciated." During November and December, 1896, Mr. Terrell reported the departure to the United States of numerous wives and children of naturalized citizens of the United States. For. Rel. 1896, 924, 925. "After long insistence and many unfulfilled promises on the part of the Turkish Government, peremptory orders have at last been procured to permit the emigration of the wives and children of a number of men of Armenian origin now in the United States, and many of them have already departed from Turkey. This friendly act of deference is appreciated, and it is trusted that no further obstacles will be interposed to the escape of these unfortunate people from the perils which unhappily appear to menace their race in the Ottoman territories." (Report of Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to the President, Dec. 7, 1896, For. Rel. 1896, lxxxix.) The minister of the United States having on several occasions been embarrassed by the arrival at Constantinople of the wives and minor children without the means of pursuing their journey to the United States, the Department of State adopted a rule requiring the deposit with it of sufficient funds in the form of a draft on London, payable to the order of the United States consul-general at Constantinople, to defray the expenses of their journey to America, as a condition precedent to the use of good offices, or, in lieu of such deposit, a satisfactory assurance that the persons in question had sufficient funds for the purpose. (Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Straus, min. to Turkey, Feb. 24, 1899, MS. Inst. Turkey, VII. 323; Mr. Adee, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Terakian, Aug. 15, 1900, 247 MS. Dom. Let. 175; same to Mr. Griscom, Sept. 14, 1900, MS. Inst. Turkey, VII. 468; Mr. Hill, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Nakash, Oct. 31, 1900, 248 MS. Dom. Let. 588; Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Nakash, Feb. 9, 1904, 272 MS. Dom. Let. 243; Mr. Hill to Mr. Mahoney, Nov. 23, 1900, 249 MS. Dom. Let. 223; Mr. Hill, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Baboyan, Jan. 7, 1901, 250 MS. Dom. Let. 100; Mr. Hill, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Kaproulian, Feb. 1, 1901, 250 MS. Dom. Let. 499; Mr. Hay, See. of State, to Mr. Sulloway, Feb. 4, 1901, 250 MS. Dom. Let. 536.) A request was made for the interposition of the Government of the United States to obtain permission for the return to the United States of the wife and two minor children of a naturalized American citizen of Turkish origin, residing at Paterson, N. J. It appeared that the wife, after her husband's naturalization, went on a visit to Turkey, taking with her her two minor children, who were born in the United States. The Department of State replied that, as the wife had been in the United States "at the time of and subsequent to her husband's naturalization, and her children having been born in this country," the American minister at Constantinople would be instructed “to demand as of right permission for them to leave Turkey." Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Van Hovenberg, Feb. 25, 1896, 208 MS. See, in this relation, Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. McCollum, Oct. 18, In 1895, Mr. Cinnamon, of Taylor, Texas, requested the good offices of the Government of the United States to obtain for his family, and also for his brother-in-law and the latter's family, permission to leave Russia. The minister of the United States at St. Petersburg, under instructions of the Department of State, requested the necessary permission for the Cinnamon family, but merely transmitted Mr. Cinnamon's request in regard to the others, since they were all Russian subjects. The Russian Government replied "that, according to the laws in force, all requests of this nature should be addressed directly, under the form of petitions, signed by those interested themselves, to the ministry of the interior if it is a question of nationality, or to the governor of the respective province if it is a question of obtaining a passport to go abroad." For. Rel. 1895, II. 1122-1123. X. PROOFS OF NATIONALITY. 1. EVIDENCES OF CITIZENSHIP. Passports, certificates of naturalization, registration in the consulates of the United States, and service on ships sailing under the flag of the United States, were "alike accepted by our consular officers and the Spanish authorities as prima facie evidence of citizenship establishing the rights of the claimants to the treatment secured to our citizens under our treaties and protocols with Spain." Report of Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to the President, Jan. 22, 1897, For. For numerous decisions as to the requisite proofs of citizenship, see As to residence at time of annexation, see Moore, Int. Arbitrations, III. 2542. As to official recognitions as evidence of citizenship, see Moore, Int. Arbitrations, III. 2543-2547; and, as to the performance of political acts, see id. 2547-2548. A person 23 years of age, who was born in Hayti, who had never been in the United States and who expressed no intention of coming thither, applied to the United States legation at Port au Prince to be registered as an American citizen. He claimed citizenship through his father, who left the United States forty-one years before and had never returned, and whose only evidence of American citizenship was a paper under the seal of the State of Louisiana, signed by the governor thereof, in which he was styled a resident of that State. Held, that the application for registration was properly declined. For. Rel. 1901, 280. 2. PROOF OF NATURALIZATION. (1) THE JUDICIAL RECORD. $ 420. The proper evidence of naturalization is the judicial record, or an exemplified copy of it, and parol evidence is admissible only in case of the loss or destruction of such record. Green v. Salas, 31 Fed. Rep. 106; Slade v. Minor, 2 Cranch C. C. 139; Dryden v. Swinburne, 20 W. Va. 89; People v. McNally, 59 How. (N. Y.) Pr. 500; Bode v. Trimmer, 82 Cal. 513; Prentice v. Miller, id. 570. This rule applies to a woman who alleges citizenship through the naturalization of her husband. (Belcher v. Farren, 26 Pac. 791.) A mere certificate of the clerk of the court, stating that the applicant had been naturalized, is not competent proof, and cannot be aided by parol evidence. (Green v. Salas, supra.) A passport issued by the Department of State is not competent judicial As to proof of citizenship in the case of locators of mines, see Hammer v. The fact that an alien assumed to make leases and perform other acts Proof that defendant on a certain day was admitted to citizenship of the It is not necessary that the judgment of naturalization should expressly state that the requisite prior declaration of intention was made; and it is not to be implied from the absence of such a statement that the declaration was not made. Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Count Vinci, Italian chargé, Sept. 1, 1899, For. Rel. 1899, 458, 459; citing Stark v. Chesapeake Ins. Co., 7 Cranch, 420; Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Tisdale, 91 U. S. 238; Campbell 1. Gordon, 6 Cranch, 179. McC., a native of Ireland, was admitted to citizenship of the United States at San Francisco in 1864. In the record of his naturalization it was recited that he came to the United States in 1852. He subsequently became convinced that he arrived in 1853 instead of 1852, and, a question having been raised as to the validity of his naturalization, applied to the court to renaturalize him, if in its opinion his former naturalization was defective or open to question. The court held that the judgment of naturalization was not impaired by the inaccurate statement of fact in the recital, it appearing that the conditions of the law, which required only a five years' residence, had in any event been fulfilled. In re McCoppin, 5 Sawyer C. C. 630. Where the name of a person is misstated in a certificate of naturalization, the true name may be proved by parol; nor does the inclusion of two names in the record, though an informality, vitiate it (Behrens meyer . Kreitz, 135 III. 591, 26 N. E. 704.) A person who obtains a legal change of name is not entitled to have his certificate or record of naturalization changed accordingly. (In re Nigri, 32 Misc. 392, 66 N. Y. S. 182.) Where a court, by way of amending its records, entered a judgment of naturalization nune pro tune, thirty-three years after judg ment was alleged to have been rendered, but no entry or memorandum of any kind of the alleged original judgment existed, it was held that the order was invalid, the power to amend not involving the power to create. Gagnon r. United States (1904), 193 U. S. 451. "The recitals of the certificate of naturalization, a copy of which accompanies your dispatch, on this point are: That he resided in the United States three years next preceding his arriving at the age of twenty-one years, and has continued to reside therein to this time; and that he has resided within this State for one year preceding this date, and that he is twenty-one years of age, and that he has resided five years within the United States, including the three years of his minority.' "I am of opinion that these conditions amount to a fulfillment of the requirements of the law in the class of cases to which that of R |