ter by showing that they contemplated a return to this country to participate in the obligations as well as to share the rights of its citizens. The same remark is applicable-though the presumption of abandonment of American character is much weaker in his case than in those of the others named-to Arthur White, who seems to have been in Hawaii about eight years, but who does not appear definitely to have made his permanent home there." Mr. Uhl, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Willis, min. to Hawaii, May 14, 1895. The persons above mentioned sought the support of the United States Peterson's claim to protection was rejected on its being ascertained that he had never been fully naturalized in the United States. (For. Rel. 1895, II. 856.) "Molteno was born in Hawaii, and, though naturalized here, returned there some years ago, and has continuously resided there since. This fact unexplained raises at least a presumption of his abandonment of any right to our protection, such a presumption being more easily entertained in the case of a foreigner naturalized here and returning to his native land than in the case of a native American taking up his residence in a foreign country." Mr. Uhl, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Willis, min. to Hawaii, May 14, 1895, "The duty of allegiance goes hand in hand with the right of protection. Those who become naturalized as American citizens and then take up their permanent abode in a foreign land lose the right to claim the protection of this Government when they cease to pay it allegiance. In coming to a determination in any particular case whether protection should be granted or refused, great care should be taken not to withhold protection where it may be justly claimed; but you are authorized to refuse it if upon a careful investigation you are satisfied that the privilege of naturalization has been abused for the mere sake of protection, and without any bona fide intention. to bear allegiance to the United States." Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hardy, min. to Persia, Feb. 2, 1899, For. "A naturalized citizen may, by returning to his native country and residing there with an evident intention to remain, . . . or by concealing for a length of time the fact of his naturalization, and passing himself as a citizen or subject of his native country until occasion may make it his interest to ask the intervention of the coun try of his adoption, . . . so far resume his original allegiance as to absolve the government of his adopted country from the obligation. to protect him as a citizen while he remains in his native land." Consular Regulations of the U. S., 1874, § 110. See, to the same effect, Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hall, vice consulgeneral at Havana, May 3, 1869, S. Ex. Doc. 108, 41 Cong., 2 sess., 202. "Persons who conceal their American nationality and represent themselves to be Ottoman subjects are not entitled to call upon this Government for protection." Mr. Hill, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Griscom, chargé, No. 345, Feb. 16, 1901, MS. Inst. Turkey, VII. 513. (3) AMERICAN BUSINESS INTERESTS. "It is highly conducive to the beneficial developments of these relations that in selecting selling and other agents in a foreign land, our producing and manufacturing houses should be able to avail themselves of the services of such natives of the countries to be dealt with as have become citizens of the United States. In this way we obtain for ourselves the agent's knowledge of the language and other conditions of the country to which he is sent, while, from the fact of his naturalization in the United States, we have a political hold on him, and are able, to some extent, to guarantee his personal rights. Hence it is a common practice of our great producing and exporting houses to send to Europe, as well as to South America, agents who are natives of the country of their agency, but who have intermediately become loyal citizens of the United States. There can be no doubt that this practice has proved very beneficial to the country of the agency, as well as to the country from which the agent is sent forth. To limit such an agency to two years would greatly destroy its efficiency. By the rules of international law, as recognized by all civilized nations, an agent of this class may live and do business in the place of his agency (if his intention is to return to dwell permanently in the place from which he is sent) without acquiring a domieil, or being subjected to a citizenship in the place of his agency. Nor, so far as concerns citizenship, is this rule modified by the treaty between the United States and Ecuador." Opinion appended to instructions of Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Beach, consul-general at Guayaquil, May 1, 1885, For. Rel. 1886, 251, 253. W., a citizen of the United States, had for a series of years resided in South America, as the representative of business interests in the United States. During those years his visits to the United States were occasional and brief; but there was evidence that he always maintained his position as a citizen of the United States and that he paid an income tax to the United States. There was no proof of any renunciation of his allegiance to the United States or of his becoming naturalized in any of the foreign countries in which he had resided. As a matter of policy, therefore, as well as of international law, it was held that his domicil and nationality were in the United States. Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Roberts, min to Chile, March 20, 1886, S. was born in Bavaria in 1844; emigrated to the United States in 1865; and was naturalized in 1880. Immediately afterwards he went to Switzerland and settled down as manager of a manufacturing establishment, which was a branch of a house in New York. In 1887 he applied to the American legation in Berne for a passport, using for the purpose the prescribed form, which contained a declaration that he was residing abroad temporarily, but that he intended to return to the United States in two years to reside and perform the duties of citizenship there. The legation granted the passport, but, in reporting its action to the Department of State, adverted to the frequency of the cases in which persons, in a situation similar to S's, after making the usual declaration appeared again at the end of the two years and made the same declaration, and so on ad infinitum. In reply, the Department said that the rule as to loss of diplomatic protection by an apparently permanent abode in a foreign country did "not apply to citizens of the United States going and remaining abroad as agents of American business houses. It is as to these," continued the Department, " that one of your inquiries is put, and I have to call attention, in reply, to the wide difference between such parties as these and absentees whose continued residence abroad can be explained only on the ground of their desire to get rid of the obligation imposed on all good citizens of contributing by their services whatever is in their power to their country's prosperity. The agent abroad of an American house is open to no such charge. The continued presence of such agents at their scene of duty is essential to the maintenance of some of our great industries, and these agents, in living and working abroad in this way, are as much entitled to the protection of the Department, no matter how long they remain away, as if they were on a mere transient visit of inquiry. And, as I have previously had occasion to observe, this protection is applicable as well to naturalized citizens returning to their country of origin as to native citizens of the United States, since it is in many cases peculiarly for the interests of business houses to employ in a foreign land agents familiar with the language and traditions of such land, and since, when such agency is avowed, there is as little ground for an inference of abandonment of American citizenship in one case as in the other." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Winchester, min. to Switzerland, Oct. 12, 1887, For. Rel. 1887, 1073. Mr. Winchester's dispatch is printed in the same volume, at p. 1069. "If your client resides abroad as a member of an American firm, or as the necessary agent or factor of an enterprise originating and having its principal seat in the United States, and if he can truthfully aver his intention to return to the United States within a reasonable time, his case would be in good shape to make application to the embassy at London for a passport. In cases of representative business agencies abroad, the Department does not exact a declaration of intent to return at a fixed time, but it does require a declaration of a fixed intent to return sometime, which intent shall not be negatived by the obvious circumstances of the applicant's domicil abroad. Otherwise, in conformity with the admitted right of self-expatriation, the party must be deemed free to voluntarily abandon his American domicil and forego the duties of good citizenship, by permanent residence abroad, even though by so doing he absolves this Government from the reciprocal duty to protect him so long as he continues to withdraw himself from his natural allegiance. Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Sturtevant, Nov. 25, 1896, 214 MS. Dom. (4) REASONS OF HEALTH. § 477. "It is presumed you will not deny that when a citizen of the United States goes abroad, without any intention to return, he forfeits, with his abandonment of his country, all right to the protection of its government. It is possible that, in going to the Fiji Islands, Mr. Burt may have purposed returning to his native country at some future period, but if this Department is not aware of any formal renunciation of his nationality on leaving for that quarter, it is equally unaware of any formal declaration of an intention to resume his abode in the United States and his allegiance to its Government. His purposes, therefore, are left open to inference. Is there any case in which the Government may assume that a citizen who may have gone abroad has abandoned all intention to return home? There must be such in the nature of things. Sometimes such an inference is justified by the length of the stay of the citizen in foreign parts. If his absence should have been unduly protracted, thereby exempting him from the liabilities and burdens of United States. During those years his visits to the United States were occasional and brief; but there was evidence that he always maintained his position as a citizen of the United States and that he paid an income tax to the United States. There was no proof of any renunciation of his allegiance to the United States or of his becoming naturalized in any of the foreign countries in which he had resided. As a matter of policy, therefore, as well as of international law, it was held that his domicil and nationality were in the United States. Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Roberts, min to Chile, March 20, 1886, S. was born in Bavaria in 1844; emigrated to the United States in 1865; and was naturalized in 1880. Immediately afterwards he went to Switzerland and settled down as manager of a manufacturing establishment, which was a branch of a house in New York. In 1887 he applied to the American legation in Berne for a passport, using for the purpose the prescribed form, which contained a declaration that he was residing abroad temporarily, but that he intended to return to the United States in two years to reside and perform the duties of citizenship there. The legation granted the passport, but, in reporting its action to the Department of State, adverted to the frequency of the cases in which persons, in a situation similar to S's, after making the usual declaration appeared again at the end of the two years and made the same declaration, and so on ad infinitum. In reply, the Department said that the rule as to loss of diplomatic protection by an apparently permanent abode in a foreign country did "not apply to citizens of the United States going and remaining abroad as agents of American business houses. It is as to these,” continued the Department, "that one of your inquiries is put, and I have to call attention, in reply, to the wide difference between such parties as these and absentees whose continued residence abroad can be explained only on the ground of their desire to get rid of the obligation imposed on all good citizens of contributing by their services whatever is in their power to their country's prosperity. The agent abroad of an American house is open to no such charge. The continued presence of such agents at their scene of duty is essential to the maintenance of some of our great industries, and these agents, in living and working abroad in this way, are as much entitled to the protection of the Department, no matter how long they remain away, as if they were on a mere transient visit of inquiry. And, as I have previously had.occasion to observe, this protection is applicable as well to naturalized citizens returning to their country of origin as to native citizens of the United States, since it is in many cases peculiarly for the interests of business houses to employ in a foreign land |