The record-union., 1897-04-14
RIGHT OF PROTECTION.
Each Case Must Stand Upon Its Own
Merits.

1t is impossible to lay down any gen.
eral rule in regard to the protection
this Government will extend to a citizen,
whether native-born or naturalized,
living in foreign country. Each case
must stand upon its own merits.
When a citizen of the United States
places himself within the Jurisdiction
Of foreign Government and subjects
himself and his property to it's laws,
and when such citizen afterWard
seeks the interference of the United
States to redress some personal wrong
and to recover compensation for losses
suffered at the hands of such foreign
Government, this Government reserves
the right to determine, at its own dis
cretion, what action it will take not
only on the merits of the particular
claim, but also in regard to the claim
ants right to protection. 1t is for this
Government to say whether the claim
shall be presented or not TO the foreign
Government.
In regard to what weight and effect
shall be given to certificate of natural
ization by foreign Government or in
ternational tribunal, while it may be
argued that this Government has never
permitted its certificate of naturaliza-
ton to be questioned and gone behind
by any such foreign authority, still the
conditional right and protection Sc
cured by such certificate must not be
confused with its unassailable char
acter. which is separable from the for
mer.
A naturalized subject may, by aban-
donment and neglect to observe and
perform the dutnies which are incum-
! bent upon him as such, forfeit all right
| of protection from this country, even if
he has not clearly become expatriated
There are cases where this country
will recognize citizenship, but will hes
| itate about extending protection to
| person who does not show clear inten-
tion TO return to this country, evidenced
| by a failure to continue the fulfilment
of the duties of citizen in support of
this Government, such as the payment
! of taxes, to bear arms, etc.
! A case in point is that of Bagur, who
| resided in the United States from 1852
to 1865, and in 1860 became a natu-
rallied citizen. In 1865 he returned to
| Spain, taking his wife with him; his
children We're born there, and for twen-
| - NNSi , AiN NOiitiiiutN W ltSlOt III lHdl
country. The fact that he never had
voted or held office in Spain or taken
part in any political demonstration
| there might show that he was not a
Jealous Spaniard, but did not prove him
to have been a loyal citizen Of the
United States.
1t was held that, while there was
no allegation that he intended to re-
turn to the United States. the inference
to the contrary is rendered very strong
by his settlement in Spain, as, the place
of his childrens birth and education
and by his failure even now to make
any effort to return. Moreover there is
no evidence that he ever contributed by
/ payment of taxes or otherwise to the
support of this Government. The facts
furnish a presumption, not rebutted
that he has abandoned his nationality,
involving his minor children in the
same abandonment"
| There can be no doubt that a natur-
allied citizen can denaturalize himself
and get rid of his acquired character,
just as he got rid of his character given
him by birth. If he returns to his
! fatherland and shows an intention to
remain there indefinitely, his original
nationality readily reverts to him.-C.
S. Walton, in Arena.