Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, For the Year 1887, Transmitted to Congress, With a Message of the President, June 26, 1888
No. 261.
Mr. Bayard
to Mr. McLane.
Washington, November 8, 1887.
Sir: Referring to recent correspondence in the case of Baron Raymond Seillière, I inclose for your information copies of certain papers filed in the Department by Mr. Bullock, of California, and of correspondence with Messrs. Develin and Miller, of New York, all relating to the request that the Department should certify to Baron Seillière’s domicile.
I am, etc.,
The following papers were left with the Secretary of State by Mr. L. L. Bullock, personally, on the 30th of September, 1887. Immediately after Mr. Bullock’s departure the Secretary of State made the following memorandum of what took place at the interview:
September 30, 1887.
Mr. Bullock called with the annexed paper and asked whether as Secretary of State I would sign it.
I declined, saying I had no official authority to do so; that the question of citizenship was submitted to the judicial branch, and that their certificate was a matter of record and receivable without contradiction any where as to the facts it contained.
T. F. BAYARD.
Present:
J. B. Moore.
I hereby certify that I have received at the State Department Marie N. R. Seillièire, who made application to become a citizen of the United States of America on the 6th day of August, 1885, in the United States district court, as is shown by the original certificate of application now on file in this Department, a certified copy of which is attached to this certificate.
That the said Marie N. R. Seillière has permanently taken up his residence in the United States of America, and has domiciled at the city of New York. By such acts as above set forth, the said Marie N. R. Seillière has secured the domiciliary rights and protection of the American citizen under the laws of the United States Government as to person and property, and is entitled to recover under the laws of the United States and under international law such personal and real estate as is just and legally belonging to him in the Republic of France.
Papers left by Mr. Bullock.
Know all men by these presents, that I Lothrop L. Bullock, a citizen of the United States, having his residence in San Francisco, Cal., make the following affidavit:
I am personally and intimately acquainted with Baron Marie N. Raymond Seillière, formerly of France, but now a resident of the city of New York.
I first made the acquaintance of Baron Seillière in San Francisco, Cal., in July, 1886; visited several portions of the State of California in company with the baron, with the purpose of examining property, in view of purchasing large tracts of land, resulting in entering into negotiations with the Union Land Company of San Francisco, wherein the baron was to purchase a large amount of land in Owens Valley, and locating a valuable water right on Owens River for the purpose of diverting the waters of Owens River, constructing a large canal, and to use the water so diverted for irrigation, the baron to furnish the capital for such enterprise.
From conversation with the baron I learned that he intended to become a citizen of the United States, and on the 6th of August, 1886, he made application for citizenship in the United States district court in the city of San Francisco, Cal., stating that he was attached to this country and its institutions, and declared his future residence to be at the Hotel Brunswick New York. The baron left California in October, 1886, and permanently located at his declared place of residence.
[Page 353]In January, 1887, I again met Baron Seillière in Washington, D. C., visiting the capital for a week, where he informed me that all his correspondence must be addressed to Hotel Brunswick in the future, and that lie intended to make a visit to France for the purpose of settling up his business and returning to this country and permanently reside here.
In April, 1887, I visited the baron at the Hotel Brunswick, New York, and found him at home, having his apartments there.
In May, 1887, he left his residence at New York for a short visit to France and returned to New York in August, 1887, where he now resides.
The baron has suffered much persecution in Franco from his family and political enemies, and ho has concluded to transfer his entire estafeo in Franco to the United States, and has employed Messrs. Develin and Miller, of New York city, as his attorneys to negotiate a settlement of the baron’s affairs in France. I have been shown an itemized schedule of the baron’s estate, consisting of one-third interest in the banking house of Demarcy, Seillière & Seillière, of Paris, France, value $1,500,000, and interest on same at 8 per cent, per annum for two years; silverware, diamonds, and paintings, valued at $500,000; besides his one-third interest in woolen factories located in the eastern portion of France, his interest being valued $1,500,000, with the earnings of the past two years added; in the aggregate amounting to over $4,000,000.
The baron has his domicile at the Hotel Brunswick, city of New York, doing business at that place; and having his bank account with White & Co., bankers, 103 Broadway street, New York. I make this, affidavit for the purpose of informing the State Department of the condition of the affairs and property of Baron Seillière, who is negotiating to purchase property and enter into manufacturing in this country, with the respectful request that the Secretary of State will issue a certificate under seal of his office that he has met Baron Marie N. R. Seillière in the State Department; that the baron has his domicile, at the Hotel Brunswick in New York, and is negotiating for property in this country.
All of which is most respectfully submitted.
[seal.]
Notary Public.
Mr. Develin to Mr. Bayard.
Sir: I have been for some time one of the counsel of Baron Marie Nicholas Raymond Seillière, and his principal adviser on this side of the Atlantic, in regard to the complications which have arisen concerning his personal liberty and the large estate and interests of which he is the owner in France.
The baron some years ago declared his intentions in the United States district court, northern district of California, to become a citizen of the United States. As evidence of this fact a copy of the declaration, certified by Hoffman, district judge there, and verified by the French consul resident at San Francisco, has been forwarded to Paris.
This declaration standing by itself might or might not entitle the baron to the protection abroad of this Government, but when it is supplemented by properly authenticated ovidence that the baron has his domicile in this country, he is, according to the practice and utterances of this Government and by international law, entitled to domiciliary protection to the same extent as native born or naturalized citizens.
See quotations from communications of Mr. Webster, Secretary of State, and Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State; and decisions of U. S. Supreme Court, as cited in Mr. Webster’s communication, “Treatise on International Law,” Wharton, vol. 2, sec. 198.
When, therefore, a party having a domicile in this country has cause to avail himself of the protection it affords, it becomes necessary that he should be fortified by such evidence of the fact and in such form as may be satisfactory to the foreign Government in which his property or interests lie, and in which he needs the protection of his Government. There is no mode of which I am aware by which this evidence can be procured and authenticated by any court or judge of the United States. Besides, it is not a judicial but a diplomatic question, properly cognizable, I respectfully submit, by the fountain-head of the diplomatic power of the country, to with the Secretary, of State.
If there be no precedent in your Department for such a certificate, its absence may be accounted for by the fact that no application was ever made to it for such a doeument. [Page 354] If this, then, be res integra, the following considerations are apposite: that this man has shown his intention to become a citizen of the United States, as appears by the certified copy of his declaration to that effect on file in your office; that he has had his domicile in this country for the last two years; and that when in May last he left this country for France, it was animo revertendi shown before his departure by the purchase of a return ticket, and by his actual return to this country in August last, and since his return by his continuous residence here, and his own repeated statements of his intention to remain, showing the animus manendi (vide The Venus, 8 Craneh, p. 278, etsegi.), all of which are established by the affidavit of Lothrop L. Bullock, on file in your Department.
In addition 1 would state that it is well and publicly known in Paris that this young man, although perfectly sane, as certified to by eminent physicians abroad and here, and as shown by his personal appearance, manner, and conversation on his presentation to you, was seized in Paris and thrown into a lunatic asylum by a hard, unnatural sister, for the purpose of preventing him from realizing his property in order to transfer it to the United States, and that she was assisted by the head of the banking-house (a regent of the Bank of France) of which he was a member, and sustained by other strong and social political influences. All these powerful antagonists the baron’s attorney in France, Commandeur d’Ullman, will meet in his attempt to recover the property of his principal, and I respectfully submit the enormity of the case and the almost insurmountable obstacles which are piled up, impeding the assertion of his rights by this inchoate American citizen with domicile here, ought to induce the Secretary of State to establish a precedent and to certify that from the proof submitted to him he is satisfied that the Baron Marie Nicholas Raymond Seillière has a domicile in this country, and according to the views of the Government of the United States, as often expressed by various Secretaries of State as well as by international law, he is entitled to “protection to person and property abroad as well as at home * * * co-extensive with the rights of native-born or naturalized citizens.” In no other way than by such a certificate can the baron have his domicile in this country authenticated so as to be of any avail to him in France, and this fact is the only absent link in his chain of evidence to protect himself and establish his rights.
I take the liberty of inclosing you a form such as the situation justifies, and which I hope may commend itself to your approval.
Very respectfully, etc.,
To all it may concern: Know ye that I, Thomas F. Bayard, Secretary of State of the United States, by reason of and relying upon the affidavit of Lothrop L. Bullock, a resident of San Francisco, State of California, in which are detailed and which substantiates the following facts in regard (to Marie Nicholas Raymond Seillière, viz, that the said Seillière some two years ago declared his intentions to become a citizen of the United States, that he has resided in the city of New York since November, 1886, animo vianendi, and has remained in said city except for some three months in the year 1887, when he made a visit to France but left this country then with the intention of returning, and that in August, 1887, he did return to the city of New York, where he now has and ever since continuously has had his residence, with the intent of remaining, as he has frequently and consistently stated, do hereby certify that it is thus proven to my satisfaction that the said Marie Nicholas Raymond Seillière has now and has had continuously for more than a year past his domicile in the city of New York in the United States.
Mr. Bayard to Mr. Develin.
Washington, October 12, 1887.
Sir: Your letter of the 10th instant requesting this Department to certify to the domicile of Baron Mario Nicholas Raymond Seillière has been received.
It is not competent for this Department to give a certificate of any of the facts which are usually recognized in law as constituting the domicile of e-n individual. Except in the issuance of passports to citizens of the United States, no such power of certification is vested by law in this Department.
I am, etc.,
Mr. Develin to Mr. Bayard.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the Receipt of your communication of 12th instant in answer to my letter of 10th instant concerning the domicile of Baron Marie Nicholas Raymond Seillière.
In your communication you remark, “It is not competent for this Department to give a certificate of any of the facts which are usually recognized in law as constituting the domicile of an individual,” etc.
If you will do me the favor to read or cause to be read to you my letter of the 10th instant, it will be manifest that there is no request for a certificate of any of the facts usually recognized in law as constituting the domicile of an individual. All that was requested in that letter and the substance of the certificate inclosed in it was that you should certify that you were satisfied that Baron Seillière had his domicile in the United States. The reference to the affidavit of Mr. Bullock and the facts stated in it were not inserted in the certificate, and I submit can not be fairly claimed to have been inserted, for the purpose of having your Department certify “as to the facts constituting” the domicile of the baron, but were only thus inserted that it might be made known to whom it might concern what evidence you had before you upon which you based your certificate as to your being satisfied as to the single fact of Seillière’s domicile.
Mr. Marcy, in his letter, from which quotations are to be found in section 198 of International Law Digest, Wharton, although speaking in the name of the President, as is the form in communications between our Government and foreign Governments, says, “Koszta was, therefore, vested with the nationality of all American citizens at Smyrna, if he, in contemplation of law, had a domicile in the United States. * * * (1, p. 484.)” The conclusions at which the President has arrived * * * are that Koszta when seized and imprisoned was invested with the nationality of the United States,” etc., (Id., 485,)
This is certainly a certificate by the State Department under Secretary Marcy of the fact that Koszta had his domicile in the United States and would seem to establish a precedent.
If it be answered that this was not an independent certificate issued to an individual, but was part of an official communication, I would respectfully ask the Department to officially communicate to Mr. McLane, our minister to France, to whose attention this matter of Seillière’s has already been brought by the highest authority, the fact that Seillière has his domicile in the United States.
If the Department wish further proof of the fact of Seillière’s domicile being in the United States I will gladly furnish it.
Very respectfully, yours,
Mr. Bayard to Mr. Develin.
Washington, October 21, 1887.
Sir: I have your letter of the 18th instant, 12 Which—after quoting from my letter of the 12th instant, written in reply to your request that the Department give a certificate of domicile to Baron Seillière according to a form which you then submitted, and my statement to you that it is not competent for this Department to give a certificate of any of the facts which are usually recognized in law as constituting the domicile of an individual—you say that you did not ask for such certificate, but that I should “certify” that I am “satisfied that Baron Seillière had his domicile in the United States.”
By referring to my letter of the 12th instant, you will find that the reason stated for my declination to execute the desired certificate was that “no such power of certification is vested by law in this Department.”
By act of Congress there is vested in this Department the power to issue passports to citizens of the United States. This is the only certification of national status which the Department is authorized by law and which it is its practice to make.
The reason of this practice is obvious. The question of citizenship is a matter of fact, whether the citizenship be by birth or by naturalization. In the latter case certain legal conclusions have to be reached by inference from facts which are ascertainable only by the judicial branch, whose judgments thereon are accepted as conclusive.
[Page 356]The question of domicile is a matter of inference from circumstances which are often shifting, uncertain, and complex. Such a certificate as you request would, therefore, not be a statement of fact which the Department is authorized by law to certify, but the promulgation of a judgment, which is not an executive function.
The practice of the Department is invariable and correct in principle; it is also impartial, and applies equally to those who are and those who are not citizens of the United States. The rights of domicile and of nationality are not identical, and are often entirely distinct and independent.
The case of Koszta has no relevance to the present question. That was the case of international controversy existing, and entertained as such by the President, in which his decision was required.
It was not a judgment or opinion in anticipation of a case that might arise; nor did it constitute an exception to the uniform course of his Department, which is to decline to pronounce anticipatory judgments.
I am, etc.,