No. 505.
Mr. Porter to Mr.
Lothrop.
Department
of State,
Washington, July 18,
1885.
No. 8.]
Sir: Acknowledging the receipt of Mr. Wurts’s No.
51, of the 14th ultimo, in the case of the arrest in Russia of Mr. Israel
Müller, a naturalized American citizen, which so clearly states and
illustrates the position taken by the Russian Government as regards its
citizens who have left Russia without permission and become naturalized
citizens of some other nation, I inclose for your information a copy of an
opinion on this case by the law officer of this Department.
While the Department approves Mr. Wurts’s course in reporting the general
aspects of the case before action, and concurs with his inference that a
favorable reply from the Russian Government is not probable, yet it would be
as well, on general principles, to state Müller’s case in the most favorable
light to the foreign office without demanding his release as a right,
expressing the hope that there may be circumstances which would dispose the
authorities to be lenient, as has occasionally happened in previous
cases.
It will thus be a matter of record that the Department and your legation have
used their best efforts for our citizens, and each additional case will add
to the evidence of the necessity for a naturalization treaty when a
favorable moment arrives.
I am, &c.,
[Inclosure.]
Department of State,
Law Bureau,
Washington, July 8,
1885.
The question brought up in the dispatch of Mr. Wurts—which may be
commended for its clearness and for the valuable information it gives as
to the practice in this relation of the legation at St. Petersburg—is
whether Russia may, without a violation of international law, refuse to
relieve Russians by birth who, after being naturalized in the United
States, return to Russia, from the obligations imposed on them as
Russian subjects.
On this question it may be observed—
- (1)
- That we have no treaty with Russia in any way conceding on
Russia’s part the right of expatriation.
- (2)
- That even should we maintain that, by the present state of
international law, the right to transfer allegiance by
naturalization is generally established, this is subject to the
right of the sovereign of original allegiance to disregard such
naturalization
[Page 670]
when,
so far as it concerns himself, it appears to have been
illusoryand insincere on the part of the party
naturalized.
It appears from the cases noted in Mr. Wurts’s dispatch that the Russian
Government, in the present case, has not transcended the right thus
conceded of treating as inoperative foreign naturalizations which are
thus illusory and insincere. The course, therefore, taken in the present
case by the United States legation at St. Petersburg should meet with
the approval of this Department.
All of which is respectfully reported.
FRANCIS WHARTON,
Law Officer,
&c.
