The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-05-21
AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.
The Decision Of the Mixed Commission in the
Case Of Psrfecto De Rojas.
DEMURRER OF THE SPANISH.
Referred to Baron Lederer as Arbitrator and
Decided Against De Rojas- The De-
cision Of the Commission Overruled.

WARRINGTON, May 20, 1873.
me recent decision OF the case OF Perfecto de
Roas against Spain BY the United States and Span
ish Mixed Commissions brief notice OF which mas
already been communicated to the public-excltes
much interest, both as bearing on indemnity for
wrongs inflicted on citizens Of the United States in
Cuba and on the question OF citizenship. @
The advocate for Spain took the ground that the
question Of Jurisdiction depended upon the agree
ment Of the two nations, dated February IL, 1871.
1t Ii entitled, Memorandum Of an arbitra-
ton for the settlement of the claims OF
citizens OF the United states, or Of their heirs.
against the government OF Spain. for wrongs and
injuries committed against their persons and prop
erty, or against the persons and property tof
those) Of whom the said heirs are the legal repre-
sentatlves, by the authorities OF Span in the
Island OF Cuba or within the maritime jurisdiction
thereof since the commencement OF the present In
surrection."
THE DECLARATION OF INTENTION.
II was not alleged in or imported by the memo
rial or exhibits in this that the claimant Is a
citizen OF the United states. On the con-
I trary, Rojas describes himself. simply as "a
resident or baltimore and a native or San
Juan de los Remedies, Island OF Cuba.n He
further states "that he came TO the United States
u
soemnly made Of his intention to become an Amer
lean CITIZEN" &C This solemn declaration OF his
intention to become an American citizen at some
future period, entirely within his discretion Is ex.
hibited with the memorial, and appears to have
been made on the 2Sth OF September, 1870
jects OF Spain against the United States, 1t could
not be maintained that this memorial, by reason
Of the declaration Of intention would have
Spain against the United States for wrongs
and injuries indicted upon his person property by
repeatedly decided by the "Mixed Commission on
bsn az and american IN sitting under the
THE COMMISSIONERS say
"ln these cases the question is raised as to
whether, In consequence OF the claimants having
declared their intention to become citizens of the
United states and to renonnce their allegiance to
Hs ey sSs to BE-
We are OF opinion that, Notwithstanding the
claimants having expressed this intention, they
stu remained British subjects untfl the necessary
fOrmalites having been completed they acted upon
the intention SO expressed"
Such has been uniformly their decision In q
great many cases involving the same question,
and it is confidently believed, Notwithstanding the
argument quoted IN the memorial from the opinion
OF MI. Commissioner WadswOrth that the Mexican
July, 1868, have held no other or different doctrine
demurred to the case alleged in the memorial and
exhibit fled on behalf OF the above-named claim
ant ior that the same y not within ,. the
the terms OF the agreement between the
two, two nations, which limits and defines said
claimant was ut the time OF the alleged wrongs
and injuries citizen OF the United States nor
es q e Or
person or property any wrongs or injuries are
alleged to have been committed: J. J. RODRIGUEZ,
OF counsel for the claimant, and Thomas j. Durant
advocate for the United States, replied to the de-
murrer, arguing that Rojas has established his
abandoned that OF his native country. This he
had right to do. BY the iDternati0nl law he was
and seek another Of choice. ana. when perma-
nently domciled In the latter the power or his
former sovereign over him ceased, and he became
at once considered member Ofthe State where he
has established his domicile; and what his civil
and political privileges may be IN this country he
has chosen Is matter OF no moment whatever In
the discussion. They call attention TO a learned
exposition OF the laws or Spain on the subject.
The treaty OF friendship, limits and navigation be-
tween the United States and the Kingdom of Spain,
October ~. 1895, speaks OF subjects OF Spain and
citizens OF the United States
Under this treaty q question arose at one time
whether British subject not naturalized In
Spain, but resident there, was Spanish subject
Court OF the United States discussed this question
IN THE CASE OF PIZARRO,
page 245, when Judge story, in delivering the
opinion OF the Court, said:-
.As to the second objection, 1t assumes, as its
basis, that the term subjects as used in the
treaty, applies only to persons who by birth
naturalization owe permanent allegiance to
the spanish government. 1t Is, in our opinion,
very clear that such is not the true interpreta-
ton OF the language. The provisions OF the
treaty are maniiestly designed to give reciprocal
and coextensive privileges TO both countries, and
to efYectuate this object the term SUBJECTS when
applied TO persons ewing allegiance to Spain, must
be construed In the same sense as the term
citizens or Innaoitants when applied to per-
The claimant has, in due form OF law, declared
his intention to become citizen OF the United
States and to renounce allegiance to his former
sovereign. He is now subject to no power but that
OF the United States and owes allegiance TO the
nationality OF the United States only.
-' ~ THE TRUE QUESTION
before us is not to what extent or in what degree
he Is citizen, Tor that Is municipal question
mission is not to deal. The petitioner is presented
here by the government OF the United states as 9
such assertion should be conclusive Of his jus siandl
! In judtcfo The law Of nations on this subject
was clearly and conclusively expounded by Score.
tary Marcy, In his correspondence with the Charge
d'Affares OF HIS Majesty the Emperor OF Aus.
tria, in the case or Martin Koszta In which solu-
ton to the important inquiry involved in the case
now before you, alike consonant with the honor
and dignity OF the United States, and In harmony
with the settled principles OF the law Of nations.
THE FACTS OF THE CASE
referred to are too well known to render recarItu-
lation necessary; the law Of the case was en-
bodied in the following expressions, which occur
at the close Of Mr. Marcy's letter.
The conclusions which the President has arrived. az
ter full examination OF the transaction at smyrna and
rssPsssiai eSnsasfa.,on o. Che views = hs AusIian
government thereon as presented IN Mr Huisemann's
invested with the nationality Of the United States,
snS 'nsy Extend heir
ton to him; that, from International law
the only law which can be rightully appealed 20 for
rules q action In this ease-Austria could derive
authority obstruct Interfere with the United
IN the exercise OF this right in eecting the liberation
koszta and that Captain Ingrahams interpesiuon for
his release was, under the peculiar and extraordinary
circumstances Of the case right and proper
According to the authorities quoted Pcrfecto de
ROJas is to be taken and considered as an Amer1-
can citizen, within the meaning OF the agree nent
between Spain and the United States Of February
II, 167h The spanish laws make him
-. 4 vECIN0 OF THE UNITED STATES,
who lawfully renounced MS original allegiance,
, who, estranged, himself by the acquisition OF q
d0mtcile In o foreign country sine amino reCer-
tessdl, Numerous authorities are quoted TO show
That Rojas Ii citizen Of the United States,
within the meaning Of the agreement with Spain,
Statea. II the Mixed Commission on British and
American Claims had decided otherwise, e. de-
Hnrp tsaicn clircea the old EnRliah nrinciniA