Mr. Cox to Mr. Bayard.
Constantinople, October 24, 1885. (Received November 10.)
Sir: Referring to your dispatch No. 289, addressed to Mr. Emmet, late chargé, in which you take exception to the ruling of the bureau of nationality in reference to the non-recognition of Messrs. Kevork Gulig-yan and Bedros Iskiyan, I have to report as follows:
In compliance with your instructions, Mr. Emmet entered a protest against the action taken by the bureau. I have the honor to inclose a copy thereof, as well as of the response thereto, with a translation. The latter will show you the view the Turkish authorities take of naturalization of Ottoman subjects, who have evaded or failed in full compliance with the law as laid down in their statutes. It is likewise a repetition of the dispatch forwarded by Mr. Emmet to the Department of State, No. 513, in which the question of naturalization was discussed with the then minister of foreign affairs and his decision fully set forth.
* * * * * * *
To one who has, in and out of Congress, regarded the fusion of various national stocks under one flag as an evidence of those attractive forces of our institutions which draw the emigrant to our shores; to one who believes with Lord Bacon that “all nations that are liberal of naturalization are fit for empire,” these evidences of a lack of advancement are regrettable. In this age of locomotion they tend to impede adventure and progress. The United States has emancipated itself from feudalism; it has announced on these very Levantine shores, with no ambiguous voice, its principle as to the indefeasible right of emigration and expatriation; it has fixed it in treaties with other civilized and progressive nations. The doctrine is that no man can be bound in any service to a Government whose citizen or subject he has ceased to be by voluntary naturalization elsewhere. The old feudal doctrine was that no subject can go from the country where he was born or where he is without the consent of his lord and master, the Government.
[Page 874]How is it, then, with those who, on being naturalized with us, return to their original home, claiming to be American citizens under our protection? Our duty and practice are plain. He must, as a universal rule, exhibit an exemplified copy of the decree of the court adjudging him, as a citizen, under the seal and signature of the clerk or prothonotary. If the document be fraudulent on its face, or circumstances indicate that fraud has been committed in obtaining it, information to the State Department should at once set in motion the United States attorney for the district where the decree was procured, to apply to the same court to have it canceled.
I have little or no library or conveniences here for such discussions. I cannot quote precedents, and such is the condition of our archives here that I cannot even utilize those of our records. But our courts have held that a certificate of naturalization, like that of a judgment, imports absolute verity. It cannot be questioned except before or by the tribunal which made the record.
The Turkish minister asserts what I am not prepared to deny, that “Guligyan and Iskiyan did not exhibit to the bureau any document except the passport;” and he argues that such a paper does not constitute, of itself, a sufficient title or proof to enable a native Ottoman subject to acquire a foreign nationality.
Now, whether the passport has or has not the effect of the record of naturalization, I am not able to decide. I should rather regard it as of lesser dignity and vigor, inasmuch as the naturalization is supposed to be the judgment of a judicial tribunal upon proofs. Nevertheless, in your dispatch No. 289 of May 29, 1885, you say “that passports are issued by this Department to naturalized citizens upon the production of the certificate of naturalization.” But does that imply that other Governments must regard the passport as absolutely verifying the citizenship?
All the Turkish bureau seems to want to know, as I surmise, is, the time of the emigration of the subject—i. e., whether he left before 1869 without permission, or after 1869 with permission—to emigrate and be naturalized abroad. Since the passport does not show this, nor the certificate except by its date, inferentially, the authorities require the certificate of naturalization itself to be presented. But, as I understand your letter of 29th May (No. 289), you refuse to acknowledge the legal right of the Ottoman Government to make such a demand. In fine, you do not recognize the Turkish law of 1869 as affecting our naturalization.
Since the passport does not show when a naturalized citizen left the country of his birth, and need not show it, as you well say, the passport goes for nothing with the Turkish officials. It is the certificate they desire to see. Its “examination is indispensable.” For what purpose? “To establish under what conditions the naturalization has been acquired.” It holds that without its imperial authorization (under the law of 1869) “the naturalization is invalid, unless it took place within the legal forms.” What legal forms? Not those prescribed by the United States laws, but within the legal forms of the Ottoman Empire, to wit, before the promulgation of article 5 of its law of 1869, forbidding Turkish subjects to leave the country without permission to become naturalized in another country.
Notwithstanding all we say, the fact remains that the Turkish bureau of nationality have determined, in spite of our protest through Mr. Emmet (No. 251), that the certificate itself must be presented in order to establish the nationality, which depends on the date of emigration according [Page 875] to their law. The Ottoman Government insists on going behind the record to give vigor to its own law, or, as you say, “participate in or make the naturalization of its subjects conditional, a doctrine which was never acknowledged by the United States, and probably never will be.”
Whether American naturalized citizens, returning to their native country, should have all the advantages of the protection of the laws of that country, and, at the same time, claim our protection, in violation of such laws forbidding their expatriation under certain conditions, is a question not clearly raised as yet by this discussion. Nor do I know what is the status of these men now claiming citizenship of the United States; but when native Turks come here to live, and seek to acquire real estate under the “capitulations” and protocols, which enable all foreigners to hold such property here, then the question of citizenship is at once mooted, and not generally until then is the law of 1869 evoked as a touchstone of citizenship abroad.
* * * * * * *
I have made another respectful protest to the Turkish authorities. This you will see by a copy of my dispatch to Said Pasha herein inclosed.
* * * * * * *
Upon this question of citizenship, so often appearing for your solution, doubtless you have formulated certain instructions for every phase and emergency, including a statement of the virtue and cogency of the passport when presented as evidence of citizenship.
I forbear, therefore, to present to the Porte any definite conclusion. I await your instructions, and until they come no further steps will be taken, and so 1 have had the honor to inform his excellency the minister of foreign affairs.
I have, &c.,