Mr. Willis to Mr.
Gresham.
Legation of the United States,
Honolulu, March 7, 1895.
(Received March 28.)
No. 93.]
Sir: On the 1st instant I received a certified
copy of the record of the trial before the military commission, on a
charge of treason, of C. T. Gulick, William H. Ricard, Thomas B. Walker,
and William T. Seward, which is herewith transmitted.1 Messrs. Ricard and Walker are
British subjects. Mr. Gulick and Mr. Seward claim to be American
citizens. This claim as to Mr. Seward is not disputed by this
Government. As to Mr. Gulick, however, it is denied on the ground that
he was naturalized under the Monarchy. The same question occurs in the
case of J. F. Bowler, to which I have referred in my No. 88 of the 23d
ultimo. The opinion of our Government upon this subject was, as therein
stated, declared by Mr. Frelinghuysen in the case of P. C. Jones, citing
8 Opinions, 139: “To constitute repatriation there must be an actual
removal, followed by a foreign residence, accompanied by authentic
renunciation of preexisting citizenship.” A similar question was decided
by Mr. Bayard in his No. 61 of September 30, 1887, who seems to have
based his opinion largely upon the political conditions then existing
here. Cognate inquiries have been answered by the Department in No. 63
of August 18, 1887, and No. 71 of January 5, 1888. I inclose copies of
the correspondence on the subject.
These decisions, that without express renunciation of allegiance our
citizens did not under the Monarchy forfeit their right to protection,
seem to be borne out by the constitutional provisions of the present
Government on the subject.
Section 2 of article 19 reads: “Every person receiving letters of
denization shall take the oath prescribed in article 101 of this
constitution, and shall thereupon be subject to all of the duties and
obligations of a citizen.” The oath mentioned is “to support the
constitution, laws, [Page 849]
and Government of the Republic of Hawaii,” which
I construe by reason of the words in italics to be equivalent to the
“oath of allegiance,” the taking of which made a naturalized citizen
under the Monarchy. That something more than this is necessary to
absolve the citizen from his allegiance to his former government is
shown by article 18, section 2, which requires of an alien desiring
citizenship to take “the oath prescribed in article 101, and an oath
abjuring allegiance to the government of his native land and of
allegiance to “the Republic of Hawaii.”
Without undertaking to discuss the question of citizenship, I have
ventured, while awaiting your instructions, to offer the above
suggestions touching one phase of it. The questions other than that of
citizenship I have not felt at liberty thus far to discuss with this
Government.
With renewed assurance of high regard, etc.,
[Inclosure 1 in No. 93.]
Mr. Putnam to Mr.
Porter.
United States Consulate-General,
Honolulu, Hawaiian
Islands, August 1,
1887.
No. 125.]
Sir: The new constitution of Hawaii, which
was recently drawn by a committee of citizens and promulgated by the
King, contains an oath which raises many inquiries by Americans
here. They wish to know whether they can take the oath prescribed
and retain intact their citizenship at home. The new obligation does
not use the word “allegiance” as the old “denization” act did, but
only requires a declaration of fealty to the constitution and laws
of the Kingdom without relinquishing allegiance to their Government
abroad. But does not the constitution and law practically constitute
the Government; and is not an oath of fealty to them in reality
fealty to the Kingdom? It is not a question as to their ability to
throw off their Hawaiian citizenship on returning to their homes, as
that has been settled by former decision, but as to whether the
changed wording of the oath will permit them to exercise the
privilege of Hawaiian citizenship here and at the same time be
entitled to the protection accorded to American citizens. In short,
can they be citizens of two countries at the same time?
I inclose a copy of the new oath.
I have, etc.,
J. H. Putnam
Consul-General.
[Inclosure 2 in No. 93.]
Mr. Porter to Mr.
Putnam.
Department of State, August 18, 1887.
No. 63.]
Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of
your dispatch No. 125, dated the 1st instant, in reference to the
effect on citizens of the United States resident in the Hawaiian
Islands of taking the oath of fealty promulgated as a part of the
new constitution of Hawaii.
In reply you are instructed that citizens of the United States who
take the said oath remain citizens of the United States and are
entitled to be regarded and protected by you as such.
I am, etc.,
Jas. D. Porter,
Assistant Secretary.
[Inclosure 3 in No. 93.]
Mr. Putnam to Mr.
Adee.
United States Consulate-General,
Honolulu, Hawaiian
Islands, December 5,
1887.
Sir: I have the honor to submit to the
Department a question of importance in this Kingdom at the present
moment. The status of American citizens here who do [Page 850] not renounce American allegiance in
civil and political affairs was clearly settled by Department
dispatch No. 63, of the 18th of August last, but a new feature has
been introduced which attaches to the same subject. There has been a
military organization in existence here for some time known as the
Honolulu Rifles. It is composed largely of young Americans, and
heretofore has been entirely independent of any authority of the
Government. It was an active force in the recent semi revolution,
although it committed no overt act as a military body, and its
influence was thrown with the revolutionists. The organization now
desires to become legalized and to put itself under the authority
and subject to the commands of the Government, and a bill is now
before the legislature having that object in view. My inquiry is
whether Americans can be members of this body, subject to the
military laws of this country and to the commands of its officials,
and still retain American citizenship, although they have not
verbally relinquished their allegiance to the United States? Or, to
be terse, can Americans in foreign countries put themselves in
position to be required, should emergencies occur, to support those
Governments by arms, against countries with which we are at peace,
or even against the United States itself?
[Inclosure 4 in No. 93.]
Mr. Rives to Mr.
Putnam.
Department of State,
Washington, January 5,
1888.
No. 71.]
Sir: In answer to the question propounded
in your dispatch No. 133, I have to inform you that citizens of the
United States do not lose their nationality by enlisting in foreign
armies.
I am, sir, etc.,
G. L. Rives,
Assistant Secretary.
