the provisions of the laws of the United States prescribing United States citizenship. Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Willis, Feb. 21, 1884, 3 Moore's Int. Law Digest, 485.

Secretary Bayard in 1886 declined to grant a passport to a Chinese woman who had been adopted in China by an American citizen and who desired to go to Japan as a medical missionary in the service of an American missionary society. Mr. Bayard to Mr. McCartee, Oct. 15, 1886, 3 Moore's Int. Law Digest, 485.

F. Effect of Declaration of Intention of Parent during Minority of Child.

Under this statute, citizenship is not conferred on a minor child by the declaration of intention of the parent to become a citizen of the United States. To effect naturalization of the child, the father must take out final naturalization papers during the minority of the child. Berry v. Hull, 6 N. Mex. 643: In re Conway, 17 Wis. 526; In re Moses, 83 Fed. 995; Dorsey v. Brigham, 177 Ill. 250.

Opinion of Secretary of State.-It does not suffice that the child was a minor when the parent's declaration of intention was made; he must have been a minor when the naturalization was completed. Mr. Cass to Mr. Medill, June 14, 1859, 3 Moore's Int. Law Digest, 464.

G. Naturalization Not Effective Internationally as to Absent Children.

A native of the canton of Vaud, who had been naturalized in the United States, invoked the intervention of the United States in order to secure the removal of his children to the United States. It appeared that by the proceedings in his native country, which took place prior to his change of allegiance, he was divorced from his wife, and the custody of the children was assigned to her. He had demanded their custody from the authorities of the

canton of Vaud, but without effect. The Department of State said: "The fact of your having become a citizen of the United States has the effect of entitling you to the same protection from this Government that a native citizen would receive; but it can not operate to destroy or to weaken in any way the authority of the canton of Vaud over its native-born citizens who have never been out of its jurisdiction, nor the exclusive rights of the tribunals, to whom the administration of its law is committed, to decide all questions which may arise between such citizens."

Mr. Buchanan to Mr. Rosset, Nov. 25, 1845, 3 Moore's Int. Law Digest, 487.

"As the question as to the right of your daughter, who is a minor, to leave her native country for the purpose of joining you in the United States, appears to be one over which the authorities of the former have exclusive jurisdiction, and as these have decided against that right it is conceived that there is no occasion for the interference of this Department in the matter."

Mr. Trescot, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Capelle, June 18, 1860, 3 Moore's Int. Law Digest, 487.

"I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 21st ultimo in relation to the impediment interposed to the embarkation from Italy of the wife and children of Mr. Dominick Valon, a native of that kingdom, now a naturalized citizen of the United States. It may be open to question whether the Act of Congress of Feb. 10, 1855, declaring to be a citizen any woman who might be lawfully naturalized and who has married a citizen of the United States, can be deemed to have operated upon a woman who has never been within the jurisdiction of this government. This doubt renders it inexpedient to issue a passport to the lady in question, as the law requires that passports be issued only to citizens of the United States. The facts of the case will, however,

5233-15

be communicated to our consul at Naples with instructions to use his good offices to procure the withdrawal by the state authorities of all obstacles to the emigration of Mrs. Valon and her children."

Mr. Seward, Secretary of State, to Mr. Tinelli, April 1, 1868, 3 Moore's Int. Law Digest, 485.

"While the general rule is that the wife and minor children share the fortunes of the husband and father, it is necessary that they should in fact partake of his change of domicil and allegiance and it has been held that the naturalization of an alien in the United States does not require this government to regard as American citizens those members of his household who have never been within the jurisdiction of the United States, but have remained in the land of their original allegiance."

Mr. Rives, Assistant Secretary of State, to Mr. Smith, December 13, 1888, 3 Moore's Int. Law Digest, 486.

A. In general.

CHAPTER III.

NATURALIZATION BY MARRIAGE.

B. Women who may be naturalized by marriage.

C. Time of marriage.

D. Necessity of residence in United States.

a. Residence in United States held not to be necessary.

b. Residence in United States held to be necessary.

E. Nature of citizenship acquired.

F. Effect of death of husband on citizenship of alien woman married to an American.

Instructions of the Department of State.

G. Citizenship of American woman married to alien. a. Under law prior to 1907.

b. Act of March 2, 1907.

Instructions of the Department of State.

H. Case of Nellie Grant Sartoris.

I. Effect of divorce.

J. Declaration of intention of husband.

NATURALIZATION BY MARRIAGE.

A. In General.

Before the passage of the Act of February 10, 1855 (10 Stat. at L. 604, Rev. Stat. Sec. 1994, U.S. Comp. Stat. 1901, 1268), marriage had no effect upon the citizenship of a woman; under our laws an alien woman marrying a citizen remained an alien still. This was in virtue of the common-law doctrine that no person can by any act of his own, without the consent of the government, put off his allegiance and become an alien. The leading case on this point is Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Peters, 242, 7 L. ed. 666.

In this case, a woman who had been born in this country before the Revolution, lived here until after reaching majority, and while the war was still in progress was married to an officer of the British army. Later, the couple removed to England, where she resided until her death. The Supreme Court decided that her marriage did not effect a change of allegiance, as "marriage with an

alien produces no dissolution of the native allegiance of the wife. It may change her civil rights, but it does not affect her political rights or privileges. The general doctrine is that no person can, by any act of their own, without the consent of the government, put off their allegiance and become aliens. If it were otherwise, then a feme alien would, by her marriage, become ipso facto, a citizen, and would be dowable of the estate of her husband, which is clearly contrary to law. . Our conclusion, therefore, is that neither of these acts warrant the court in saying that Ann Shanks had ceased to be a citizen of South Carolina at the death of her father."

In the case of Beck v. McGillis, 9 Barb. 35, the facts were that a native American citizen, married, in Canada, a British subject, where they remained and had children born to them. In passing upon the rights of the wife and children to take under a will, the court said: "Mrs., McGillis was born a citizen of the United States. While a minor she intermarried with a subject of Great Britain, but neither her marriage nor her residence in a foreign country constitutes her an alien. Whether, indeed, a citizen can, by any mere act of his own, dissolve his native allegiance and become an alien is not definitively settled in this country. The question has been regarded as one of much difficulty as well as delicacy, and though frequently discussed before the Supreme Court of the United States, it has never, I believe, been regarded as the leading point in the case presented, so as to call for the judgment of the court. But it has been decided by that court that the marriage of a feme sole with an alien husband does not produce a dissolution of her native allegiance."

The British Act of Parliament of 1844 (7 & 8 Vict. 154, Chap. 66) declared that any woman married, or who shall be married, to a natural-born subject or person naturalized, shall be deemed and taken to be herself