Mr. Blaine to Mr. Denby.
Washington, February 20, 1890.
Sir: I have received your No. 1018 of the 30th of December last, in relation to the issue of a travel certificate to Chun Arfat, a Chinaman who claims to be a naturalized citizen of the United States.
In your letter of the 29th of December to Consul Crowell you take the correct position that, unless Chun Arfat has a passport or makes application for one, no ground exists for the issue of a travel certificate.
[Page 174]As to the general subject, the Department is inclined to revert to Mr. Frelinghuysen’s position that a travel certificate should only issue for the particular trip undertaken by the applicant. It should not be issued under circumstances which permit it to be used in lieu of a passport for residential purposes. The term during which such a travel certificate may be valid can not well be fixed by a general rule. Circumstances may determine a long and circuitous journey, with necessary halts, extending over a considerable period of time. The purpose of the journey, its course and objective point are chiefly to be considered in issuing such a certificate, and not the time during which the holder may rove at will or reside outside treaty ports.
If a permit to travel be expanded by a time limit, so as to be tantamount to a permit of residence of specified duration, the door is opened to a logical claim on the part of the Chinese authorities to intervene to attach conditions to the contemplated sojourn of the bearer, thus introducing unnecessary and undesirable complications.
Questions of residential rights and privileges should in all cases rest on the treaties and on the passports which those treaties stipulate as sufficient evidence of the holder’s rights.
Approving your views as expressed to Consul Crowell, and necessarily reserving any opinion as to Chun Arfat’s citizenship till the question is presented,
I am, etc.,