Mr. Sampson to Mr. Hay .
Quito , December 20, 1901 .
Sir: One of the most difficult experiences a representative of the United States has is to determine what are the rights of certain claimants to American citizenship. It is a well-known fact that there are many instances of persons claiming citizenship of the United States, both native and naturalized, who have been living abroad for many years, all the time claiming the protection of the United States, but discharging none of the duties of citizenship and, in many instances, of no honor to the nation, while all their scheming is to avoid all obligation to and claim all exemptions possible from duties to the country in which residing. (I know one case in which a naturalized subject has resided for over forty years in the land of his nativity, without even visiting the United States, and can not now speak a word of English.) Such persons make it a “religious duty” (?) to sign the Register of American Citizens in the United States legation or consulate each succeeding two years and profess great admiration for the “Stars and Stripes” and sigh for the day to speedily come when they can once more be “at home in the best country in the world” (always saying, “I hope in two or three years more”). Some such persons are engaged in merchandising. You may enter and inspect their large stock of goods and not find a dollar’s worth that has been purchased in the United States. In many instances they have amassed fortunes, but not one dollar of it increases the wealth of the United States; and yet it seeks the protection of the same. In prominent letters over the front door are seen the words “American property.” Thus, in every possible way and by repeated assertions they claim American citizenship, and if an official representative of the United States dare question it, the overzealous citizen becomes indignant and informs the said official that “——Government” would not hesitate to protect her citizens when abroad. True, there are those who reside abroad for many years who are engaged in some business or enterprise that will advance the interests of American commerce or manufactures, and who fully intend to return to the United States to resume the duties of citizenship as soon as a certain result has been accomplished. Such persons are entitled to proper recognition. One not “on the ground” may be ready to say it is an easy matter to determine between these two classes. But after an “experience” he will be ready to acknowledge that it is almost impossible [Page 387] to determine the one deserving recognition from the one who is a citizen solely for “what is in it.” In view of these facts it is important that some more definite rules should be laid down so that uniformity of recognition of citizenship rights in all countries may be the same. Under present regulations the circular of State Department, “Passports for persons residing or sojourning abroad,” March 27, 1899, is as explicit as can be. But would it not be better that Congress should so amend section 4075, Revised Statutes, as to provide that only the Secretary of State shall have power to issue passports, but providing that the other officials therein specified might have the power to verify a passport, once only, to hold good not to exceed two years? This would enable the holder to make an application to the State Department for a reissue. No person should leave the United States without a passport if he wants one. If he wants it renewed let the official who issued it be the judge as to whether he is entitled to it or not, except as above specified. It seems to me it would be well to require all such persons asking for a reissue to make proof of some property interests in the United States, or that they are abroad in the employ of some citizen or company of the United States owning property interests in the United States, or that they are abroad for health or pleasure and not located in business in any foreign country unless in the sale of American products, and that they intend to return to the United States within —— years to resume the duties of citizenship.
The results of the late Spanish-American war have developed another class of cases. A citizen of Porto Rico, for example (and a true case), was in Ecuador, holding a regularly issued Spanish passport, when Porto Rico became a part of the United States. He at once professed great admiration for the United States and declared he would be henceforth an American citizen. Next he applied for registration as such and asked for a passport.
Under diplomatic and consular regulations two forms are provided, one for native and the other for naturalized citizens, one of which must be filled and sworn to in duplicate by the applicant, one copy to be sent to the State Department. In such a case it will readily be seen it is impossible to fill out either form. He is not either native or naturalized, but a citizen (if at all) by national treaty. He can not swear he was born in the United States or that he emigrated to the United States, for he has never been there, not even in Porto Rico after it became a part of the United States. He can not swear he is or ever was domiciled in the United States, hence never left it, all of which the affidavit requires him to state. Suppose an effort is made to fill out either of the forms given in instructions. In such a case, when the copy for the State Department would arrive there it would be found such a nondescript that it would be refused a place among the records of that office.
- First. In the case just given will the assertions of the man that he is a loyal citizen of the United States and that he protests against citizenship in Ecuador be sufficient to entitle him to a passport?
- Second. Or will it be necessary for him to evidence his desire of citizenship first by returning to Porto Rico or going to the United States?
- Third. Would it be well to give him a passport for two years, with the warning that it would not be renewed unless be should spend part of the time in the United States? In such a case what kind of duplicate declaration should he be required to make?
The foundation of nearly all our trouble in this matter, in case of naturalized citizens, is the failure of our courts to require proper proof of residence in the United States for five years before naturalization. Many of them seem to aim to make this proof as easy as possible—a mere form.
From what I have been told and what I have seen in my practice before the courts, I doubt not there are cases of naturalization in which the applicant never resided in the United States to exceed three to six months; cases in which the applicants went to the United States for the sole purpose of securing naturalization for the indemnity it would bring, as a mere mercenary investment, and returned to their native land. Then, at the end of five years, they again went to the United States and made proof (?) of five years continued residence there, when they were legally declared citizens of the United States.
It would be a wise thing for Congress to so amend subdivision 1 of section 2165, Revised Statutes, as to limit the jurisdiction to circuit or district courts of the United States or the supreme court of any State or Territory, and require that the final proof of residence, etc., shall be made before one of said courts when in regular open session. Only in this way can the common fraud on our naturalization laws be stopped. (I have nothing to say as to the perjury of applicants and witnesses and the incompetency or corruption of many of our inferior courts.)
If this matter can be brought to the notice of Congress as I have seen it in thirty years’ practice as a lawyer before the courts of record, State and national, of the United States, and in my consular and diplomatic experience, there would be no trouble to secure such an amendment.
I have, etc.,