'But, having returned to the country of your birth, your native domicile and national character revert, and you are bound to obey the laws exactly as if you had not emigrated.""

On the 16th of February, 1866, Mr. Seward wrote to Mr. Riotte, "The proceedings you have adopted, and the decision you have arrived at in the premises, are approved.” The irregular proceedings by which Costa Ricans and others obtain certificates of naturalization in the United States without any intention of residing there, to which Mr. Riotte thus called attention, are referred to in the recent report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives.

[N. B.-In addition to the foregoing résumé in the appendix to the royal commissioner's report, reference is made to the correspondence between Mr. Fish and Baron Lederer, (ante, pages 77, 78,) to the correspondence between Mr. Washburn and Mr. Fish, (ante, pages 245, 249, and 256,) and to the following correspondence, printed in connection with Lord Tenderden's résumé, under the direction of the Seretary of State.]

Mr. Williams to Mr. Fish.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, December 21, 1872. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 6th instant, inclosing a copy of a communication from Baron Lederer, of the 21st ultimo, and presenting for my consideration the following

case:

One François A. Heinreich, now resident in Austria, was born in the city of New York in 1850, of Austrian parents, who were then temporarily residing in that city, but who never became naturalized. The family returned to Austria when François was about two or three years old, taking him with them; and he has resided there since the return of his parents to that country. It is stated that at one time François obtained a passport as a citizen of the United States from the American consul at Stuttgart, in Wurtemburg. It is also stated that in 1866 and 1867 he was furnished with Austrian passports, under the protection of which he traveled in the quality of an Austrian subject.

François is now called upon to render military service in Austria, but claims to be exempt therefrom on the ground that he is an American citizen; and he desires this Government to protect him in that claim. The Austrian government, however, denies that he is an American citizen, and insists that he must be considered an Austrian subject. Upon the above state of facts my opinion is requested as to whether the said François is a citizen of the United States and entitled to protection. The first article of the convention of September 20, 1870, between the United States and the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, reads as follows:

"Citizens of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy who have resided in the United States of America uninterruptedly at least five years, and during such residence have become naturalized citizens of the United States, shall be held by the government of Austria and Hungary to be American citizens, and shall be treated as such. Reciprocally citizens of the United States of America who have resided in the territories of the AustroHungarian monarchy uninterruptedly at least five years, and during such residence have become naturalized citizens of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, shall be held by the United States to be citizens of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, and shall be treated as such. The declaration of an intention to become a citizen of the one or the other country has not, for either party, the effect of naturalization."

As a general rule, a person born in this country, though of alien parents who have never been naturalized, is under our law deemed a citi zen of the United States by reason of the place of his birth, (10 Opin., 321, 328, 329; and see also section 1 to the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution.) But the article of the convention just quoted-the right of an American citizen to change his national character, and become a citizen of Austra―is clearly recognized; but it is required that he shall have had a residence of five years in that country, besides being naturalized there, before the United States are bound to consider and to treat the person so naturalized as an Austrian citizen. In the case under consideration, therefore, though the said François is a native of this country, and as such was originally clothed with American nationality, yet, he having resided in Austra uninterruptedly far beyond the period mentioned, the question submitted resolves itself practically into this inquiry, whether during that time he has acquired Austrian citizenship?

It would seem from the communication of Baron Lederer that, under the law of Austria, a foreign-born child of Austrian parents takes the nationality of the latter, and is regarded as an Austrian citizen. Assum ing this to be correct, and I am satisfied it is, a doubt might be suggested whether political duties or burdens (such as military service) could rightfully be imposed by that country upon a person who by birth is a citizen of this country, without his consent, or without his assuming the character of, or signifying by some act or declaration his will to be, a citizen of the former country. But the facts presented relieve the case before me of any difficulty of this sort. The circumstance that the said François has at different periods obtained passports from the Austrian government, and traveled under their protection as an Austrian subject, taken in connection with the length of time during which he has resided in Austria, may, I think, be viewed as a sufficient manifestation of consent on his part, at those periods especially, to be a member of that nation.

Now, there can be no question that such consent, co-operating with the law of Austria, to which reference has been made, (by which, as it would seem, children of Austrian parents born abroad are naturalized at their birth,) and accompanied, moreover, by continued residence in that country, effected a complete change in his nationality from American citizenship to Austrian citizenship. Having once acquired the lat ter, it cannot reasonably be maintained that his Austrian nationality, or the political obligations appertaining thereto, may be cast aside by him at pleasure so long as he continues to reside within the jurisdiction of Austria.

I have not overlooked the fact that François once obtained a passport from an American consul at Stuttgart. This is unimportant except so far as it is indicative of a preference in regard to nationality, and I consider it overbalanced by the circumstances above adverted to, and the further circumstance that from the return of his parents to Austria up to the present time his domicile or residence appears to have remained in that country.

In view of all the facts and circumstances appearing in this case, I am of the opinion that, under the provisions of the aforesaid convention, François A. Heinreich should be held by the United States to be an Austrian citizen, and treated as such; that he is not an American citizen, and consequently not entitled to protection from this Government.

I am, &c.,

Hon. HAMILTON FISH,

GEO. H. WILLIAMS.

Secretary of State.

[Telegram-Received March 22.]

Mr. Beardsley to Mr. Fish.

ALEXANDRIA, EGYPT, March 20, 1873. Leopold Ungar, born Bavarian, naturalized American 1856; passport 1857, last visé 1862; returned Europe 1861; since business various countries, including Prussia, returning often to America; according to his statement, last 1871; arrived here from Italy under assumed name and false passport; arrested by Prussians as fraudulent bankrupt; American papers found in his trunk. Dispatch from Cologne police says Ungar domiciled there since 1862; denied by Ungar, but offers no proof. Convention of 1868 relied upon; Ungar's lawyer contends same not applying, convention not retroactive, citing Savigny's International Law; claims my active assistance for Ungar's release. I believe Ungar has forfeited American citizenship, not having claimed it for eleven years, so far as his papers show. What shall I do?

Important.

BEARDSLEY.

[Telegram.]

Mr. Fish to Mr. Beardsley.

WASHINGTON, March 22, 1873.

Your telegram leaves it impossible to decide whether Ungar is or is not entitled to American protection.

If an American citizen commits a crime in a foreign country and escapes thence to another foreign country, between which and that wherein the offense was committed there exists an extradition for offenses such as that charged, his citizenship does not afford ground for the American representative to do more than to see that his reclamation and extradition are properly made and conducted.

FISH.

No. 76.]

Mr. Beardsley to Mr. Fish.

AGENCY AND CONSULATE-GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AT ALEXANDRIA, EGYPT, Cairo, March 24, 1873. (Received April 23.) SIR: On or about the 12th instant an individual calling himself Laurent Uferland, German by birth and Jew by faith, arrived at Alexandria from Italy, with a pass to visit Egypt, granted by the Ottoman minister at Rome. The moment he disembarked from the steamer he was arrested by orders of the Prussian consul-general, on the charge of having committed fraudulent bankruptcy at Cologne, and placed in the local prison of Moharrem Bey, a prison where only European prisoners are confined.

After he was arrested he claimed to be a naturalized citizen of the United States, and stated that his true name was Leopold Ungar, and not Laurent Uferland. His trunk, containing a large amount of jewelry and precious stones, and all his papers, were taken possession of by the

Prussian consulate, but he had managed to secrete many precious stones about his person, sewn into the lining of his coat, by the aid of which he secured the services of an English attorney.

I went to Alexandria on the 15th instant, and on the following day but one, that is to say on the 17th instant, the prisoner's attorney called upon me and informed me that a person claiming to be an Amer ican citizen was in the local prison of Moharrem Bey, having been placed there by the Prussian consulate.

The United States frigate Wabash, bearing the flag of Admiral Alden, arrived at Alexandria on the same day, (the 17th,) and all my time until the evening of the following day was occupied with the admiral. I however instructed my dragoman to visit Ungar in prison and ascertain if he had an American passport. The following evening my dragoman reported that he had visited Ungar, who informed him that all his papers, including his American passport, were in the possession of the Prussian consul-general. My dragoman had then gone to the Prussian consul-general and asked to examine Ungar's papers. He was shown the passport alluded to, as well as the false passport obtained at Rome. The American passport was dated 1857, and last viséd in 1862.

Ungar, however, assured my dragoman that if he could see me he could prove that he was not a citizen of Prussia. Having no official knowledge of Ungar's having been placed in prison by the Prussian consulate-general, and desiring to bring the case officially forward, on the morning of the 19th I caused an official note to be addressed to the director of the prison, requesting him to send to the United States consulate-general the prisoner, Leopold Ungar, claiming to be an American citizen. Of course this was a formal and perfectly regular proceeding for the purpose of obtaining an official statement from the director of the prison that Ungar was imprisoned by orders of the Prussian consul-general as a Prussian subject. On receipt of such a statement I would have immediately written to the Prussian consul-general to the effect that, having requested the release of a prisoner claiming to be an American citizen, I had been officially informed by the director of the prison that the said prisoner was confined, by his orders, as a Prussian subject, and requesting that the prisoner be publicly examined for the purpose of determining his citizenship. The letter to the director of the prison was sent by the hands of the cawass of the consulategeneral, and I was preparing my letter to the Prussian consul-general, when, to my utter astonishment, the prisoner walked into the consulate, under a guard from the prison.

It appears that, in the absence from the prison of the director, the letter was handed to the jailer, who at once sent the prisoner to the consulate under guard. This individual appeared in the office a few minutes later, and claimed that he could not read, and had supposed the order came from the Prussian consulate. I have no doubt, however, but that the jailer was bribed by the prisoner.

I at once determined to examine Ungar in order to satisfy myself, if possible, as to his political status. Under oath he stated that he was born in Bavaria in 1831; went to California in 1849; completed his naturalization, and received his papers in 1856; obtained a passport, and returned to Europe in 1857. Since then he has been in business in various parts of Europe, principally in Cologne, where he was at one time a merchant, at another time photographer, and finally, since 1867, a member of the firm of Marius & Co., engaged in speculating in lottery-tickets. The latest visé on his passport is 1862, and he cannot

prove that he has been in the United States since 1857. Certainly he has had no legal domicile there, unless for a few months. His family, that is to say, his father and mother, live at Cologne, and he has made that his home for five years at least.

When Ungar fled from Cologne he carried with him about $20,000 worth of precious stones and jewelry, much of which had, according to his own confession to me, been obtained by fraud. He traveled under the name of Laurent Uferland, and at Rome obtained from the Ottoman minister a pass to come to Egypt. The moment he set foot on Egyptian soil he was arrested by the Prussian consul-general, with the consent of the Egyptian authorities.

During Ungar's examination I received a letter from the director of the prison, saying that the prisoner had been released by mistake, and begging me to send him back to prison as he was responsible for him to the Prussian consul-general. You will readily perceive that the position was embarrassing. If Ungar had come to Egypt under his true name, and with his American passport, I would have protected him at all hazards, and the question would have been one of extradition. But he proclaimed his American citizenship only after he was in the hands of the Prussian authorities. In Egypt the fiction of exterritoriality exists, and Ungar was virtually still on Prussian territory. When, however, he appeared in the United States consulate he was on United States soil, and if a citizen of the United States, he was theoretically entitled to all the protection of our Government. But was he a citizen of the United States? Certainly not, if the fourth article of the treaty of 1868 between the United States and Germany applied to his case. If that article only applies to those who may have become citizens of either country after the ratification of the treaty, then Ungar would be still held to be a Prussian citizen by Prussia, who, until the ratification of the said treaty, did not admit the right of her citizens to denaturalize themselves.

So long as he remained in Prussia, or under Prussian authority, he would be regarded entirely as a Prussian subject. The moment, however, he reached the United States, he would be invested with full citizenship and entitled to all its benefits. Would the fact, however, of his having reached the United States consulate-general at Alexandria, under the circumstances above described, entitle him to invoke the official power of our Government in his behalf? I think not. It might as against Prussia, but the Egyptian government, who had Ungar in charge, must be considered.

After I had examined Ungar I had an interview with the Prussian consul-general, Mr. De Jasmond, and examined all of Ungar's papers. No papers of any kind were found indicating that he had been in America since 1857. Among other documents shown me by Mr. De Jasmund was the declaration of the police authorities of Cologne that Leopold Ungar had, on the 25th of February, 1867, demanded the right of legal domicile in the city of Cologne, and that from that time until the end of the year 1872 he had his domicile and continued residence in that city.

I was satisfied in my own mind that Ungar had no claim whatever upon my official assistance, except in so far as his having accidentally reached the consulate of the United States; and I was also satisfied that on broad grounds of international justice I ought not to hold him against the demands of the Egyptian authorities. I concluded that my proper course to pursue would be to send him back to prison, protesting against his being delivered to any authority until the question of his nationality had been definitely settled. Before final action, I went on