Mr. Gresham to Mr. Sperry.
Washington, May 17, 1893.
Sir: Your dispatches Nos. 18, 20, 23, and 34, diplomatic series, of the respective dates of February 23 and 27, and March 1 and April 29, have been received. They report the case of Hajie Seyyah, stated to be “in asylum “at your legation, and ask instructions in the matter.
Briefly, Mirza Mohamed Aly, otherwise styled Hajie Seyyah, a native Persian, appears to have been admitted to American citizenship by the fourth district court of San Francisco, June 11, 1875. Soon afterwards he quitted the United States, went to India, where he amassed some fortune; and thence returned to Persia, where he has invested his means in the purchase of two villages, aggregating some thirty families. He is a “Moilah,” or Mohammedan priest of high rank. He has two wives, one of whom is a relative of the Shah. He appears to be domiciled in Persia, and to have fully adopted Oriental customs and life. He has never had an American passport, and until a very recent date would seem to have made no assertion of the status he acquired by naturalization in the United States.
Having shared, to some extent, in the recent political agitation of a seditious nature, initiated by Malcolm Khan, and having had seditious publications addressed to him, he was some two years since arrested and imprisoned in various places for nearly twenty months. On his release he found his affairs involved, one of his villages having been robbed, fields taken from him and debts due him withheld.
Seeking redress, restitution of the realty was effected, but he seems to have been unable to collect the moneys owing to him. At this juncture he sought your assistance in the recovery of these debts, alleging his American citizenship, and you addressed the prime minister asking that justice be done him. The minister denied your right to intervene, asserting that under Persian law, fortified by certain treaty provisions with Russia, which are held to constitute the measure of privilege under the most favored nation clause of our treaty with Persia, Hajie Seyyah’s naturalization is invalid because he emigrated without his sovereign’s consent. Fearing arrest (for what cause is not shown), Hajie Seyyah appealed to you for shelter, and became an inmate of your legation, nominally as a salaried servant. As the result of several interviews had by you with the Persian authorities, orders have been issued permitting this person to return unmolested to his villages, but his status as a naturalized citizen and his “asylum” in your legation had been formally denied; and the relief reported in your No 34 is unaccompanied by any admission in these regards.
Hajie Seyyah has expressed a wish to return to the United States.
Two distinct and somewhat conflicting questions appear to be involved, Hajie Seyyah’s claim to protection as an American citizen, and his claim to enjoy asylum against process of Persian law. As to [Page 499] the first, the uniform rules and precedents of this Government make Hajie Seyyah’s claim to protection as a bona fide citizen of the United States extremely doubtful. He quitted this country soon after having been naturalized and has lived abroad, latterly in his native land some seventeen years, without manifesting his American citizenship or performing its duties. His domicil interests, membership in a purely oriental hierarchy, mode of life and polygamous marriage, suggest no affiliation with the social organization of this country. Were he within the jurisdiction of the United States, he would be amenable to criminal process for bigamy.
All the circumstances of his case suggest a merely colorable acquisition of American citizenship for the purpose of evading the obligations of his original Persian allegiance, and were he an applicant for a passport as a citizen of the United States you would be unhesitatingly instructed to decline its issuance.
As to asylum, the United States does not claim such a right under international law and discourages the practice even in countries where it has become a local usage, as in certain Spanish-American States. Nothing in your dispatches suggests that the local usage so exists in respect to other foreign legations and consulates in Persia as to justify by parity of custom, a resort by your legation to this vicious practice of sheltering an alleged offender against the local laws, if indeed this man be such an offender. You state no political or criminal charges against him; and the action of the authorities in restoring him to possession of his property excludes any supposition that such charges now exist. As far as shown, he seems to be merely a civil litigant appealing to Persian law for recovery of certain private debts.
You make the point that the question whether Hajie Seyyah is in fact a Persian subject, is the vital issue in the case. The effect of naturalization under the laws of the United States, is no wise dependent upon or affected by the laws of the alien’s country. So far as we are concerned, it is perfectly immaterial whether Hajie Seyyah had or had not the Shah’s permission to emigrate, if he be lawfully admitted to American citizenship; and his rights would be effectively respected in the United States and protected in a third country. But when he voluntarily returns to his native country, presumably knowing the law thereof in his regard, he becomes the subject of a conflict of laws. The legality of his naturalization in the United States is not to be questioned except by allegation of fraud in its procurement, which does not enter into the present case.
The claim of the Persian minister that the naturalization here is not valid, because lacking the prior consent of Persia, can not be admitted, but on the other hand and in the absence of a treaty of naturalization, its validity may not be practically enforceable in Persia against the counter claim of that Government, that under its law the man has not lost his original allegiance.
The emigration treaty of July 3, 1844, between Russia and Persia, which the minister invokes, has no relation whatever to the naturalization of Persians according to the laws of the United States; for the widest expansion of the favored nation doctrine could not make a treaty between two foreign states the measure of the validity of a judicial act done in the United States in conformity to our municipal law.
To sum up, I have no hesitancy in regarding as unworthy the claim of Hajie Seyyah to be protected as a person who has bona fide conserved the rights and discharged the reciprocal duties of American citizenship, however lawful be the act of his naturalization. I am equally [Page 500] indisposed to countenance an exceptional claim of “asylum;” and, indeed, I do not regard the term as pertinent to the circumstances you narrate.
I am unable to see in what way the good understanding which I am glad to believe Persia desires to maintain equally with the United States, is to be subserved by your continuing to shelter this person, especially when assurances have been furnished, unaccompanied by any conditions as to his nationality, that he is permitted and aided to return unmolested to his home, with recognition of his property-rights. The sooner you end this anomalous and very objectionable situation, by causing Hajie Seyyah to take up his residence elsewhere than under your official roof, the better it will be from every point of view.
I am quite unable to sanction your subterfuge of employing him as a nominal servant of the legation. Whatever rights your representative office may possess in regard to the freedom of official dependents from molestation while performing necessary service, must be asserted in good faith to command due respect.
I am, etc.,