be permitted to express my opinon of the necessity of legislation to define how and by what acts, whether of commission or of omission, or of both, United States citizenship is lost.

It has been shown that in some instances recent treaties provide one test; but even in these cases further legislation is needed to relieve the decision in each case of much embarrassment and of much doubt.—Mr. Fish to the President, August 25, 1873.

residence abroad.

For. Rels.,

The material facts upon which the application is based Continued appear to be that Verdelet père, the father of Eugene Albert, was born in France, resided in this country thirty- 1883, p. 285. five years, and in 1853 became a citizen of the United States by naturalization. In 1859 he returned to his native country, and continued to reside there until his death, which occurred in 1874. In 1862 Eugene Albert, the present applicant, was born in Bordeaux, France. has always resided in France, has never been in the United States, and expresses no intention of ever coming here to reside, although, he says, property interests may render it necessary for him to visit the United States at some future time.

He

A passport is the usual form in which this Government attests the nationality of citizens of the United States to a foreign government. Under the circumstances of Mr. Verdelet's case, it is considered that he is not entitled to a passport, and consequently that he can not justly claim a certificate in any other form attesting the fact that he has maintained American nationality.—Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Morton, November 9, 1883.

contention.

The position taken by the Imperial Government in Yabl- Russian kowski's case, accompanied as it is by the text of the

For. Rels.,

1895, p. 1107.

Russian law claimed to be applicable to such cases, constitutes the most direct statement of the Russian contention in this regard that has as yet been presented.

Taking the two clauses of the law together, they amount to a claim for the punishment of a Russian subject for the imputed offense of becoming a citizen or subject of another state, or even of entering into the service of another

The position of the United States as to the right of expatriation is long established and well known. The doctrine announced by us at an early stage of our national existence has been since generally adopted by all the European states except Russia and Turkey; and the Turkish Government does not go so far as to assert in practice a claim to punish a Turk for the offense of acquiring any other nationality. That every sovereign state has an indefeasible right to prescribe and apply the conditions under which an alien, being within its territorial jurisdiction, may be admitted to citizenship is a proposition not to be denied and scarcely capable of any material qualification. The legislation of the United States proceeds upon this theory.

Under the circumstances, and under the statutes of this country, this Government can not acquiesce in the Russian contention now formally announced, and must continue in the future to do as it has done in the past, and remonstrate against denial of the rights of American citizenship to persons of Russian origin who by due process of law have acquired our nationality, controverting any and every attempt to treat the acquisition of our citizenship as a penal offense against the law of the country of origin. Mr. Olney to Mr. Pierce, November 4, 1895,

FEE.

The Secretary of State is required by law to collect a fee of one dollar for every citizen's passport issued. The fee having been collected and the passport issued, the former is turned over to the Treasury Department, and there is no provision of law nor any regulation by which it may at a subsequent date be refunded. Previous to the passage of the act now in force the fee was five dollars.

July 28, 1874.

While it is provided by act of Congress that a fee of Vol. v. p. 59, five dollars shall be collected on every citizen's passport issued from the Department, there is no law or regulation authorizing the return of fees received under the act referred to. The failure of the passport to reach you in time was not the fault of this Department, and the delay was occasioned by a failure to comply with the regulations. It could, in accordance with the frequent practice in such cases, still be forwarded to Mr. Archer; and, as the fee can not be repaid, will be returned to you, should you so request.

June 8, 1894.

In reply to your letter of the 4th instant, inclosing the Vol. xi, p. 49, passport No. 12043, in favor of Adolf Bender, and requesting the return of the fee paid therefor, because Mr. Bender would not be protected by the passport in Russian territory, you are informed that the Department can not comply with your request, the passport having been regularly applied for and issued.

The Department has received your letter of September Vol. xvi, P. 405, Sept. 25, relative to the passport issued to Dr. Guido Ranniger 28, 1896. on June 1, 1896, and suggesting the refund of the fee paid by him, as the passport failed to reach him. In reply,

Rule 13, rules governing

for passports, 1896.

you are informed that the passport having been regularly issued, the fee can not be returned and has been deposited with the United States Treasury.

By act of Congress approved March 23, 1888, a fee of applications one dollar is required to be collected for every citizen's passport. That amount in currency or postal money order should accompany each application. Orders should be made payable to the Disbursing Clerk of the Department of State. Drafts or checks will not be received.

MS. instructions.

INDIANS, PASSPORTS FOR.

Various acts of Congress have from time to time been passed making certain tribes of Indians and certain Indians who fulfill statutory conditions citizens of the United States, and these may be granted passports. All other Indians are not citizens, but as wards of the Government they may receive its protection. While they are abroad, they may, therefore, be granted documents specifying that they are not citizens, but requesting protection for them.

I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 506, of the 11th ultimo, reporting the application of Humper Nespar, or Wadded Moccasin, a Sioux Indian, for a passport.

In reply, I have to say that Indians are not citizens of the United States by reason of birth within its limits. Neither are our general naturalization laws applicable to them, but various Indian tribes have been naturalized by special acts of Congress.

Section 6 of the act of February 8, 1887 (24 Stat., 388), provides that "every Indian born within the terri

torial limits of the United States to whom allotments shall have been made under the provisons of this act, or under any law or treaty, and every Indian born within the territorial limits of the United States who has voluntarily taken up, within said limits, his residence separate and apart from any tribe of Indians therein, and has adopted the habits of civilized life, is hereby declared to be a citizen of the United States."

Section 43 of the act of May 2, 1890 (26 Stat., 99), provides that "any member of any Indian tribe or nation residing in the Indian Territory may apply to the United States court therein to become a citizen of the United States, and such court shall have jurisdiction thereof and shall hear and determine such application as provided in the statutes of the United States."

Unless Humper Nespar was naturalized in one of the above modes, he is not entitled to a passport as a citizen of the United States.

A copy of your dispatch will be sent to the Interior Department and an effort made to determine definitely what his status is, as some Sioux tribes have been naturalized by special acts. Even if he has not acquired citizenship, he is a ward of the Government and entitled to the consideration and assistance of our diplomatic and consular officers. Your action in the case is, therefore, approved.

In this connection, reference to the case of "Hampa,” reported in dispatch No. 453, of May 7, 1896, from the consul at Odessa, is pertinent. Hampa, an American Indian, a member of a cow-boy company which performed at Odessa, was discharged on account of drunkenness. The consul aided him, and, upon the police requiring of Hampa a passport or document from the consulate certifying to his identity, the consul issued the following: "To whom it may concern:

"The bearer of this document is a North American