"The information given below is believed to be correct, yet is not to be considered as official, as it relates to the laws and regulations of a foreign country. "A subject of the Netherlands is liable to military service from his nineteenth to his fortieth year. He must register to take part in the drawing of lots for military service between January 1 and August 31 of the calendar year in which he reaches the age of 19. He is exempt, however, from service if he is an only son or is physically disabled; and in the case of a family half of the brothers are exempt, or the majority if the number is uneven. "No military service is required of one who became a citizen of the United States before the calendar year in which he became 19 years of age, and a Netherlands subject who becomes a citizen of the United States when he is 19 and between January 1 and August 31 may have his name removed from the register by applying to the Queen's commissioner of the province in which he was registered. If he does not have his name removed from the register, or if he becomes a citizen of the United States after the register is closed (August 31) and his name is drawn for enlistment, his naturalization does not affect his military obligations to the Netherlands, and if he returns he is liable (1) to be treated as a deserter if he did not respond to the summons for service or (2) to be enlisted if he is under 40. "Former Netherlands subjects are advised to ascertain, by inquiry from the Netherlands authorities, what status they may expect to enjoy if they return to the Netherlands. This Department, however, uniformly declines to act as the intermediary in the inquiry." Circular notice of the Department of State, Aug. 30, 1901, For. Rel. 1901, 418. (9) NICARAGUA. $449. Mr. Donaldson, United States consul at Managua, Nicaragua, in his No. 12, June 15, 1898, reported that President Zelaya had granted Dr. Victor Roman, a naturalized citizen of the United States of Nicaraguan origin, a year in which to arrange his business and return to the United States, on pain, if he remained in Nicaragua after that time, of being considered a citizen of that country. Mr. Donaldson enclosed an extract from the Revised Laws of Nicaragua, under the head of Aliens, chapter 3, as follows: "Article 32. Nicaraguans naturalized in a foreign country remain subject to the nationality of Nicaragua always when residing in the territory of Nicaragua." The Department of State said: "In the absence of a treaty of naturalization, the only recourse in favor of Dr. Roman is one of friendly concession by the Nicaraguan Government." Mr. Day, Sec. of State, to Mr. Merry, min. to Nicaragua, No. 89, May 9, See, also, Mr. Day, Sec. of State, to Mr. Quay, U. S. S., July 6, 1898, 230 (10) PERSIA. The position of Persia, as an adherent of the doctrine of indelible allegiance, was defined in the case of Hajie Seyyah, a native subject, who had been naturalized in the United States. In a note to the minister of the United States at Teheran, Nov. 19, 1893, the Persian prime minister declared: "Hajie Seyyah, of Mahallât, is a veritable subject of Persia whether he be resident in Persia or he depart for a foreign land. Under no circumstances can there be any change in his nationality, and wherever he may be he will be a citizen of Persia. I send this reply so that there may be no objections raised in the future." a The Department of State answered: "You may say to the minister of foreign affairs that so far as the case of Hajie Seyyah is concerned the incident was terminated by the announcement that this Government was indisposed to regard him as entitled, under all the circumstances of the case, to protection as a person bona fide conserving his acquired rights as a citizen of the United States. "This being so, it does not appear to be necessary or expedient to discuss the abstract question of the right and duty of the Government of the United States toward its lawful citizens." Mr. Uhl, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. McDonald, min. to Persia, Jan. 5, 1894, For. Rel. 1893, 508. "The information given below is believed to be correct, yet is not to be considered as official, as it relates to the laws and regulations of a foreign country. "Permission to be naturalized in a foreign country is not granted by the Persian Government to a Persian subject if he is under charge for a crime committed in Persia, or is a fugitive from justice, or a deserter from the Persian army, or is in debt in Persia, or fled to avoid pecuniary obligations. "If a Persian subject becomes a citizen of another country without the permission of the Persian Government he is forbidden to a For. Rel. 1893, 507. reenter Persian territory, and if he had any property in Persia he is ordered to sell or dispose of it. "There is no treaty between the United States and Persia defining the status of former Persian subjects who have become naturalized American citizens." Circular notice, Department of State, Washington, Feb. 18, 1901, For. (11) PORTUGAL. § 451. "The information given below is believed to be correct, yet is not to be considered as official, as it relates to the laws and regulations of a foreign country. "Military service is obligatory upon Portuguese male subjects, but by becoming naturalized in a foreign country a Portuguese loses his qualifications as such. "On returning to the Kingdom with the intention of residing in it he may reacquire Portuguese subjection by requesting it from the municipal authorities of the place he selects for his residence. Not making this declaration he remains an alien and is not subject to military duty. "If a Portuguese leaves Portugal without having performed the military duty to which he was liable and becomes naturalized in a foreign country, his property is subject to seizure, and that of the person who may have become security for him when he left the Kingdom is equally liable. There is no treaty between the United States and Portugal defining the status of former Portuguese subjects who have become naturalized American citizens." Circular notice, Department of State, Washington, Feb. 11, 1901, For. Rel. 1901, 439. "A protracted examination of the files of this Department discloses no case of complaint by reason of the impressment into the Portuguese military service of a naturalized citizen of Portuguese origin, returning to that country." (Mr. Adee, Second Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Costa, Oct. 23, 1897, 221 MS. Dom. Let. 622.) (12) ROUMANIA. $ 452. "The information given below is believed to be correct, yet is not to be considered as official, as it relates to the laws and regulations of a foreign country. "All male inhabitants of Roumania, except those under foreign protection, are liable to military duty between the ages of 21 and 30 years. "American citizens formerly Roumanian subjects are not molested upon their return to Roumania, unless they infringed Roumanian law before emigrating. One who did not complete his military service in Roumania, and can not prove that he performed military service in the United States, is subject to arrest, or fine, or both, for evasion of military duty. "There is no treaty between the United States and Roumania defining the status of naturalized Americans of Roumanian birth returning to Roumania." Circular notice, Department of State, Washington, Feb. 20, 1901, For. Rel. 1901, 441. (13) RUSSIA. $453. In 1867 Mr. Seward presented to the Russian minister at Washington a draft of a convention of naturalization, and expressed the hope that the Russian Government would accept it, not only as a means of regulating the subject between the two countries, but also as an example and incentive to other governments to conclude similar arrangements with the United States. Prince Gortchakow declined the proposal on the ground that it was the policy of Russia to forbid the return of her subjects who might choose to abandon her protection and escape from their allegiance. Mr. Seward addressed to the Russian minister a long expostulatory argument against this position, but without result. Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Stoeckl, Russ. min., Sept. 9, 1867, MS. Bernstein's case formed the subject of a report to Congress. (Message Mr. Fish, replying to an inquiry concerning the treaty relations between the United States and Russia, and the treatment of naturalized citizens of the one country on their return to the other, the latter being their country of origin, said: "We have no special treaty with Russia on this subject, nor is this Department informed as to her laws or practice in such cases. The friendly disposition manifested by Russia towards this Government would lead it to entertain the hope that its citizens, who conduct themselves properly in that country, would be allowed to travel therein without molestation." Mr. Fish subsequently stated, however, in the case of a native of Russian Poland, that the United States could not guarantee him against detention and annoyance on his return to his native country, if he was by its laws liable to military service. Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bednawsky, May 4, 1869, 81 MS. Dom. Let. 58; Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Marks, Feb. 24, 1870, 83 MS. Dom. Let. 333. "The Department has received your despatch No. 180, of the 7th instant, relative to the case of Casimir Kachelski, who you say has been sentenced by a court at Warsaw to be banished to Siberia for becoming naturalized as a citizen of the United States. It seems obvious that that part of the sentence, at least, which is based upon the allegation that Kachelski voluntarily left his native country, is erroneous in point of fact, for, having been a minor when he was sent to Breslau in Silesia for his education, he was legally and actually subject to the will of his parent, and by his obedience thereto cannot properly be accused of having left Poland of his own accord. It is presumed that the Russian law to which you refer prohibits the subject of that Empire from becoming naturalized anywhere. It cannot be believed that it pointedly forbids them from becoming citizens of the United States. If it did, both the enactment and carrying into effect of such a law must be regarded as derogatory to the dignity of this Government and as requiring a remonstrance as being incompatible with those friendly relations which we are desirous of keeping up. "The Department concurs with you that the proper course for Kachelski to pursue, under existing circumstances, would be to petition the Emperor for his pardon. You will in that event support the petition by such representations as you may suppose would be most likely to ensure its success." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Schuyler, chargé at St. Petersburg, No. 144, See, in a similar sense, Mr. Evarts. Sec. of State, to Mr. Foster, min. to |