MESSAGE OF PRESIDENT GRANT, 1873.

(2 Wharton's Digest, 312).

"I invite the earnest attention of Congress to the existing laws of the United States respecting expatriation and the election of nationality by individuals.

"Many citizens of the United States reside permanently abroad

tered, or shall enter, or voluntarily continue to serve on board of any such ships of war, or in the land forces of the said United States of America, at enmity with us, are, and will be guilty of high treason."

Opinion of Chancellor Kent:-From the "historical review of the principal discussions in the Federal Courts on this interesting subject in American jurisprulence, the better opinion would seem to be, that a citizen cannot renounce his allegiance to the United States without the permission of government, to be declared by law; and that, as there is no existing legislative regulation on the case, the rule of the English common law remains unaltered." (2 Kent's Commentaries, p 60.)

An Act concerning American citizens in foreign States, July 27, 1868.

"Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle this Government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed: Therefore, "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this Government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this Government.

"SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That, all naturalized citizens of the United States, while in foreign states, shall be entitled to and shall receive from this Government, the same protection of persons and property that is accorded to native-born citizens in like situations and circumstances.

"SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That whenever it shall be made known to the President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand of that government the reasons for such imprisonment, and if it appears to be wrongful and in violation of the rights of American citizenship, the President shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen, and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, it shall be the duty of the President to use such means, not amounting to acts of war, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate such release, and all the facts and proceedings relative thereto shall as soon as practicable be communicated by the President to Congress."

with their families. Under the provisions of the act approved February 10, 1855, the children of such persons are to be deemed and taken to be citizens of the United States, but the rights of citizenship are not to descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.

"It thus happens that persons who have never resided within the United States have been enabled to put forward a pretension to the protection of the United States against the claim to military service of the Government under whose protection they were born and have been reared. In some cases even naturalized citizens of the United States have returned to the land of their birth, with intent to remain there, and their children, the issue of a marriage contracted there after return, and who have never been in the United States, have laid claim to our protection, when the lapse of many years had imposed upon them the duty of military service to the only Government which had ever known them personally.

"Until the year 1868 it was left embarrassed by conflicting opinions of courts and of jurists to determine how far the doctrine of perpetual allegiance derived from our former colonial relations with Great Britain was applicable to American citizens. Congress then wisely swept these doubts away by enacting that any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officer of this Government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expa triation, is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this Government.' But Congress did not indicate in that statute, nor has it since done so, what acts are deemed to work expatriation. For my own guidance in determining such questions, I required (under the provisions of the Constitution) the opinion in writing of the principal officer in each of the Executive Departments upon certain questions relating to this subject. The result satisfies me that further legislation has become necessary. I therefore commend the

An Act concerning Aliens and British Subjects, May 12, 1870. Extract :—“ 4. Any person who by reason of his having been born within the dominions of Her Majesty is a natural-born subject, but who also at the time of his birth became, under the law of any foreign state, a subject of such state, and is still such subject, may, if of full age and not under any disability, make a declaration of alienage in manner aforesaid, and from and after the making of such declaration shall cease to be a British subject. 5. From and after the passing of this act an alien shall not be entitled to be tried by a jury de medietate linguæ, but shall be triable in the same manner as if he were a natural-born subject. "6. Any British subject who has at any time before, or may at any time after the passing of this act, when in any foreign state and not under any disability, voluntarily become naturalized in such state, shall, from and after the time of his so having become naturalized in such foreign state, be deemed to have ceased to be a British subject and be regarded as an alien;" etc.

subject to the careful consideration of Congress, and I transmit herewith copies of the several opinions of the principal officers of the Executive Department, together with other correspondence and pertinent information on the same subject.

"The United States, who led the way in the overthrow of the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance, are among the last to indicate how their own citizens may elect another nationality. The papers submitted herewith indicate what is necessary to place us on a par with other leading nations in liberality of legislation on this international question. We have already in our treaties assented to the principles which would need to be embodied in laws intended to accomplish such results. We have agreed that citizens of the United States may cease to be citizens, and may voluntarily render allegiance to other powers. We have agreed that residence in a foreign land, without intent to return, shall of itself work expatriation. We have agreed in some instances upon the length of time necessary for such continued residence to work a presumption of such intent."

ALIBERT'S CASE, 1852.

(Report on Naturalization, United States, p. 133.)

A citizen of France loses his French nationality by being naturalized in a foreign state.

Alibert was a native of Digne, Basses Alpes. He went to the United States in 1838, at the age of 18, and, after going through the usual formalities, was naturalized in 1846. In 1852 he returned to France and was arrested while on a visit to Digne as an “insoumis " of 1839, and pleaded his naturalization as exempting him from service. The United States consul at Marseilles applied to the general commanding the district, who informed him that Alibert's claim was founded in right, if his naturalization was really dated in 1846, as his naturalization would incapacitate him from serving in the French army, and the date of it would prove that more than three years had elapsed since the offense was committed (that being the period of limitation required by the penal code), and that he could not consequently be proceeded against for insubordination. Nevertheless Alibert was brought before a "conseil de guerre" at Marseilles, and condemned to a month's imprisonment.

The cause was then brought by appeal before a superior military

court at Toulon, and the sentence quashed, thereby establishing Alibert's immunity from conscription.1

SECTION 23.-CITIZENSHIP-NATURALIZATION.

Ex Purte CHIN KING.

Ex Parte CHAN SAN HEE.

U. S. CIRCUIT COURT FOR OREGON, 1888.

(35 Federal Reporter, 354.)

Children born in the United States of Chinese parents are citizens of the United States.

Application for writ of habeas corpus.

DEADY, J.—“ The writ of habeas corpus in these cases was allowed and issued on June 25, 1888, and they were heard together on the same day.

"The petition of Chin King states that she was born in San Francisco, Cal., on October 10, 1868; while that of Chan San Hee states that she was born in Portland, Or., on March 15, 1878; and they each state that they are restrained of their liberty by William Robert Laird, the master of the British bark Kitty,' because the collector of customs for this port refuses to allow them to land from said bark on the ground that the petitioners are Chinese, and have no return certificate, as required by the act of Congress on that subject; but

1 In the case of Michael Zeiter, 1869, before the court of first instance of Wissembourg, the question was whether he was exempt from military service. And this depended upon whether he was a citizen of France, for, by the 2d article of the law of March 21, 1832, as the court say, "nul ne peut être admis dans les troupes françaises s'il n'est français."

Zeiter contended that he had been naturalized in the United States, and had thereby lost his French nationality. The court assented to this view of the law but demanded further proof of his naturalization in America. When he had procured satisfactory proofs, the court decreed as follows:

66 Attendu que, par la production du certificat qui lui a été delivré le vingt-huit mai dernier, par le consul des Etats Unis à Paris, et qui a été enregistré à Wissembourg aujourd'hui, le demandeur a justifié qu'il est citoyen américain: le tribunal donne acte au demandeur de ce que, par la production du dit certificat, il a satisfait au jugement rendu en ce siége le vingt-cinq avril dernier.

"En conséquence dit et reconnait que le demandeur, Michel Zeiter, par sa naturalisation en pays étranger, a perdu la qualité de français."

they aver that they are native-born citizens of the United States and therefore not included within the terms of said act.

"The return of the master to each writ states that the Kitty' sailed from Hong Kong for Portland, on April 19, 1888, and that the petitioners were passengers thereon during said voyage, and are now in custody on board the same, for the reasons stated in the petitions. "On application the United States district attorney was allowed to intervene on behalf of the United States, and allege that he had no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief, as to whether the petitioners were born in the United States, as alleged, or not.

"On the hearing it appeared that Chung Yip Gen is a Chinese merchant, who has lived and done business in this city for the past 13 years and for 12 years prior thereto in San Francisco; that he was married in San Francisco about 23 years ago, and the petitioners are his daughters, the older one having been born in San Francisco, and the younger one in Portland, and that in 1881 the father sent them and their mother to China, from whence they were to return when they pleased.

"By the common law, a child born within the allegiance-the jurisdiction of the United States, is born a subject or citizen thereof, without reference to the political status or condition of its parents. Me Kay v. Campbell, 2 Sawy., 118; In re Look Tin Sing, 10 Sawy., 353; 21 Fed. Rep., 905; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch., 583. In the latter case it was held that Julia Lynch, who was born in New York in 1849, of alien parents during a temporary sojourn by them in that city, and returned with them the same year to their native country, where she resided until her death, was an American citizen.

"The vice-chancellor, after an exhaustive examination of the law, declared that every citizen born within the dominion and allegiance of the United States was a citizen thereof, without reference to the situation of his parents.

"This, of course, does not include the children born in the United States of parents engaged in the diplomatic service of foreign governments, whose residence, in contemplation of public law, is a part of their own country.

"The rule of the common law on this subject has been incorporated into the fundamental law of the land.

"The fourteenth amendment declares: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they reside.'

"In In re Look Tin Sing, 10 Sawy., 353; 21 Fed. Rep., 905, it was held that a person born within the United States, of Chinese parents,