parents, although the grandfather, who resides in Berne, with whom the children are living, states that the father has taken out his first papers and is still living in the United States. It appears, however, that the parents have practically deserted the children, the father's whereabouts being unknown and the mother living an immoral life in Long Island, so that the grandfather is not only willing but anxious to keep the children, but experiences considerable trouble, as the Swiss authorities refuse to allow the children to remain without a passport, not recognizing them as Swiss, as the mother lost her right through her marriage, her husband being a German and a deserter from the army. Under these trying circumstances, the children having been born in the United States, I respectfully submit for your consideration the question whether protection can be afforded the children during their minority. Awaiting your instructions, I have, etc., No. 185.] JOHN G. A. LEISHMAN. Mr. Hay to Mr. Leishman. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 170, of the 8th instant, in regard to the case of Elise and Emma Bernot, aged 7 and 5 years, respectively, who, according to certificates issued by the board of health of Hoboken, N. J., were born in the United States of alien parents. You inquire whether protection can be afforded the children during their minority. In reply I have to say that no principle is better settled than that birth in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the parents, confers American citizenship. Upon the facts stated, therefore, these girls are citizens of the United States, and as such are entitled to passports and the protection of this Government. I am, etc., Mr. Hay to Mr. Leishman. JOHN HAY. No. 186.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: Supplementing the Department's No. 125, of the 24th instant, you are informed that the children Elise and Emma Bernot, being too young to understand the nature of an oath, the application for passports in their behalf may be made by their guardian. I am, etc., JOHN HAY. PASSPORT, REFUSAL OF LEGATION AT BERNE TO ISSUE, TO FRED. KNECHTENHOFER. Mr. Leishman to Mr. Hay. No. 180.] UNITED STATES LEGATION, Berne, Switzerland, November 24, 1899. SIR: I beg leave to lay before you the case of Mr. Fred. Knechtenhofer, who applied for a passport through the consul of Berne, which, after carefully considering, I decided to refuse, and if the reasons for refusal appear sound and logical and the decision meets with your approval, I would like to place same on record at this legation as a guide for the future, as the question at issue refers more particularly to Switzerland, as it involves the vexed question of dual citizenship. The circumstances of the case are as follows: The said Fred. Knechtenhofer was born in Switzerland in the year 1873, emigrating to the United States in 1893, soon after he had passed the twentieth year, and shortly before reaching his majority, when he would be subject to military service. Promptly on arriving at 21 he made application to become naturalized, and on 19th September, 1899, was granted his certificate as an American citizen by the court of Buchanan County, at St. Joseph, Mo., and within one month after receiving his papers he left the United States, sailing on the steamer Westernland, on the 18th October, 1899, in order to return to his native land, where he is now living with his father. Upon examining the application it appeared to me that this was one of the many cases where American citizenship was obtained merely as a convenience, to be used as a cloak to shield the individual from his obligations at home, without incurring any new, and at the same time conserve his right as a Swiss citizen, which can only be lost by the voluntary act of the individual in the manner prescribed by law. I thereupon instructed the consul to propound the following questions to the young man: First. Whether he had resigned his Swiss citizenship in the manner prescribed by law; and, second, whether he was willing to make a special affidavit declaring his bona fide intention of returning to the United States in order to reside there and perform the duties of a citizen. His reply to the first question was, that he had not renounced his Swiss citizenship, and, upon being pressed further, admitted that it was not his intention to do so. Regarding the second question, he evidently had no intention of returning to the United States, having looked on the statement in application of his intention to return within two years as a matter of form, as he stated that it was his intention to remain with his father and help him work the farm. Now, the granting of a passport under above conditions, which the prima facie evidence which is ordinarily demanded would warrant, might, in the event of the Swiss Government calling on the party to perform military service, cause the Government of the United States considerable annoyance, and consequently I respectfully submit the following questions, i. e. : On account of the peculiar conditions which exist in Switzerland, is the minister warranted in refusing a passport to a native-born Swiss who returns to the country of his birth after acquiring American citizenship, unless he can clearly show that he has formally renounced his Swiss citizenship in the manner prescribed by law, which every Swiss is thoroughly familiar with; and further, as a matter of fact, can a Swiss who, in order to become a citizen of the United States, must, when taking the oath of allegiance, first renounce allegiance to any foreign power, especially to the land of his birth-can he, without false swearing and thus obtaining his certificate of naturalization by fraud, be considered a bona fide citizen of the United States as long as he conserves his Swiss citizenship, which he well knows he can not lose except by his own act in formally renouncing same? Awaiting your advice and instructions, I have, etc., JOHN G. A. LEISHMAN. No. 190.] Mr. Hay to Mr. Leishman. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, December 12, 1899. SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 180, of the 24th ultimo, reporting your refusal to issue a passport to Mr. Frederick Knochtenhofer, the circumstances of whose case are as follows: He was born in Switzerland in 1873; came to the United States in 1893, soon after he had passed his twentieth year and shortly before reaching his majority, when he would be subject to military service; was naturalized in the United States on September 19, 1899; left the United States within one month thereafter, when he returned to his native land, where he is now living with his father. In answer to inquiries put to him he admitted that he had not renounced his Swiss citizenship and did not intend to do so, and had no intention of returning to the United States to live. Under the circumstances cited, the Department approves your action in refusing him a passport. You ask advice on the following points: 1. Are you warranted in refusing a passport to a native-born Swiss who returns to the country of his birth after acquiring American citizenship, unless he can clearly show that he has formally renounced his Swiss citizenship in the manner prescribed by Swiss law? In reply to this I have to say, that the laws of the United States do not require the consent of the government of the alien's origin or a compliance with the laws of such country relative to renunciation of allegiance as a prerequisite to naturalization here. You would, therefore, not be justified in making it a condition to the issuance of a passport that the applicant shall show that he has formally renounced Swiss citizenship in the manner prescribed by Swiss law. 2. "Can a Swiss who, in order to become a citizen of the United States, must, when taking the oath of allegiance, first renounce allegiance to any foreign power, especially to the land of his birth—can he, without false swearing and thus obtaining his certificate of natu ralization by fraud, be considered a bona fide citizen of the United States as long as he conserves his Swiss citizenship, which he well knows he can not lose except by his own act in formally renouncing same?" This is in effect, can a person who obtains his certificate of naturalization by fraud be considered a bona fide citizen of the United States? Naturalization being a judicial act, there is no authority on the part of the executive to declare that a naturalized citizen of the United States is not a citizen because of fraud in the procurement of his citizenship. That can only be determined judicially by a competent court of the United States. But this does not interfere with the exercise of the discretionary power vested in the Secretary of State in the matter of granting passports and protecting American citizens abroad, and the Department's standing rule is to withhold a passport from any holder of naturalization papers found to have been obtained by fraud. I am, etc., JOHN HAY. TURKEY. NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF INDEMNITY CLAIMS OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS. No. 28.] Mr. Straus to Mr. Hay. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: On the 9th instant I telegraphed you in cipher as follows: Had a satisfactory audience. The Sultan has directed the indemnity to be arranged, and sends compliments to the President. The question of the payment of indemnity has had my constant attention since the settlement of the Erzerum consulship and the removal of the obstacles against traveling in the interior, reported in my dispatch No. 21, of 16th November. I have had numerous con ferences with the minister of foreign affairs, and he drew up a report to the council of ministers based on these conferences and upon the memorandum I submitted covering the claims paid by us growing out of the lynching of the Italians by the New Orleans mob and the massacre of the Chinese in Rock Springs, Wyoming. This report, as the minister informed me, recommended the payment of our claim when adjusted as to the amount, and that the council of ministers adopted the report and submitted the subject for the approval of His Majesty. It was by the Sultan referred back to the council, and about ten days ago again submitted to His Majesty. There the matter rested. On the 7th instant I sent our dragoman, Mr. Gargiulo, to the palace with an unofficial memorandum to be left with the Sultan's first secretary for communication to the Sultan. In this memorandum I suggested the advisability for a private audience. I was summoned to an audience by His Majesty on Friday last, the 9th instant. He received me, as is his custom, in his usual pleasant manner, and informed me the matter discussed between his first secretary and Mr. Gargiulo, referring to our claim, he had directed to be arranged, and that all the other matters pending he would assist me in adjusting. I explained to him the situation, and that it was my hope when I was appointed to this mission to avoid making issues, but to adjust the pending questions so that all irritation be removed and that the relations between the two countries be, as they always should be, in entire harmony and friendship. He said my former mission gave him every assurance of that, and therefore he was so much gratified when he learned of my appointment. The audience lasted about three-quarters of an hour, and again at the conclusion he said he had directed the matter of my demand to be settled, and requested me to give his best compliments to the President. On the following day I called on the minister of foreign affairs, and he again recounted to me the steps that had been taken regarding our claim. I told him of the audience, and that His Majesty had twice informed me that he directed our claim to be settled. It will doubtless yet require some time and considerable effort to conclude the indemnity negotiations and have the amount paid over, yet the important point has been gained. Our claim is now admitted by the Sultan and the council of ministers and directed to be liquidated. This is a decided reversal of the absolute refusal contained in the Porte's note of August 4, 1898, transmitted in Mr. Angell's dispatch No. 168, of August 4, 1898, being identical with the Porte's note to the other powers. * * * I have, etc., OSCAR S. STRAUS. No. 52.] Mr. Straus to Mr. Hay. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: I let no opportunity pass to press the indemnity negotiations, which have to be carried on with the Palace as distinguished from the Porte. In answer to my statement that my Government certainly expects that no unusual delay shall take place in fulfilling the Sultan's promise to liquidate the indemnity, of which I had advised my Government by telegraph, the Sultan's secretary stated to our interpreter His Majesty requested him to say he had ordered the liquidation and payment and it would be made. Yesterday our interpreter, Mr. Gargiulo, went again to the Palace, and the secretary, after consulting the Sultan, stated that it had been fully decided to buy a cruiser in America, and arrangements were being made through bankers in Paris for the installment payments prior to concluding the contracts, and that I would be informed as soon as these arrangements are concluded, which will be in a short time. The secretary then said he was requested by the Sultan to ask me to telegraph my Government the result of the recent experiments with dynamite guns, with a view if they have proved satisfactory he purposed to arrange for the arming of the cruiser with such guns. I understand negotiations of a similar kind are in contemplation and in progress with other countries whose governments have preferred indemnity claims. I have, etc., * * * OSCAR S. STRAUS. Mr. Hay to Mr. Straus. No. 97.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatches Nos. 45 and 52, of the 8th and 28th ultimo, respectively, on the subject of our indemnity claims against Turkey. The former dispatch deals especially with the Lenz claim. The Department approves your plan to settle for a lump sum all |