[Colombia–New Granada.]
A correspondence took place in 1847–’48–’49 respecting the laws affecting aliens in New Granada.1
This was renewed in 1855.
The principal subjects treated of were the law as to intestate estates and a decree which had been issued respecting claims for losses suffered during the civil war.
In 1861 Mr. Griffith requested to be informed whether Mr. Bransby, a British subject, residing in New Granada, and who had accepted an appointment as interpreter in the New Granadian civil service, was to be considered a British subject.
Mr. Griffith was instructed that Mr. Bransby had not, by accepting such employment, forfeited his allegiance, or ceased to be a British subject; and it was not suggested that he had formally renounced his British allegiance, or taken any oath of allegiance to the republic of New Granada.2
His rights, therefore, to protection as a British subject, in all matters not immediately connected with his employment as interpreter, were unimpaired, and, excepting as to such matters, he was as much entitled to British protection as he was before he accepted that employment.
In May, 1862, Mr. Griffith reported that the United States minister had communicated to him confidentially the instructions which he had received from Mr. Seward respecting the protection to be afforded to United States citizens domiciled in New Granada.3
These instructions were to the following effect:
Citizens temporarily visiting New Granada, but retaining their domicile in the United States, were to be afforded protection against any impositions of the government there for its support and maintenance.
Citizens of the United States, no matter how they acquired that title, who have gone to New Granada, become domiciliated there, and are pursuing business, or otherwise living there, without definite and manifest intentions of returning to the United States, are subject to all the laws of New Granada affecting property or material rights, exactly the same as citizens of New Granada.
Mr. Griffith adds that he has been informed that the New York commission for the liquidation of United States claims arising out of the collision at Panama in 1856, acting upon those principles, had ignored all the claims brought forward by United States citizens who were domiciled on the Isthmus at the time of the collision.
In June, 1862, Mr. Griffith forwarded a copy of an official decree declaring that foreigners [Page 1333] domiciled “in the republic are to be allowed to acquire real property in the same manner as natives.”1
This decree further provided that foreigners or “immigrants “should be naturalized from the moment they enter the republic, and were to be entitled to all the rights and be subjected to all the obligations of native citizens. For the space of 20 years, however, they were to be exempted from military service, except in the case of foreign war, from all direct or extraordinary contributions, and from all public employment, save that which might be imposed on them in the municipal district where they happened to reside.
Mr. Griffith was instructed that “although such a law was unusual, it was competent for a country to make and enforce it, without furnishing any ground of complaint to foreign states. The distinction drawn by it between commorant and resident foreigners seemed, on the whole, reasonable and just. The foreigner who, by the relations of property, marriage, profession, or business, and length of residence, had incorporated himself into a state, certainly owed a qualified allegiance to it, and it would be entitled to extend its protection to him with reference to all other states but that of his origin or birth. Such foreigners are truly and practically citizens of the state which they have adopted, and cannot complain that they are liable to the obligations of native citizens, with whom they are placed on an equality in every other respect.”2
On the 19th of April, 1865, a law was passed defining the condition of foreigners in the United States of Colombia.3
Article 2 classifies foreigners into domiciled and transient residents.
3. Domiciled foreigners are those who establish themselves permanently, or publicly declare their intention of so establishing themselves, or have resided two years.
Temporary residents are exempted from military service or office.
Domiciled aliens are exempted from military service, forced loans, and all personal employment or office of a permanent character.
5. Repudiates any responsibility for damages suffered by aliens in time of war, they in such cases being placed on the same footing as natives.
6. Aliens interfering in civil or international contests to become subject to all the penalties and duties of Colombians.
7. This law not to interfere with treaty stipulations.
Mr. O’Leary, on this law being communicated to him, immediately remonstrated against article 5, the practical inutility of which had indeed been remarked on by the Colombian President, who had opposed its being passed.
Mr. O’Leary’s remonstrance was framed on the instructions forwarded to Her Majesty’s chargé d’affaires when a similar law was enacted in 1847, and was approved by Her Majesty’s government.4
In October, 1865, Mr. O’Leary5 requested to be informed whether the children, born in England, of Mr. Montoya, a native Colombian naturalized in England, were entitled to exemption from the Colombian military service as British subjects.
Mr. O’Leary6 added that, by the Colombian constitution, the offspring of Colombian parents born abroad were to be considered as citizens “when domiciled in Colombia.”
Mr. O’Leary7 was instructed that “This is a question of Colombian municipal law; but upon the statement contained in your dispatch, it appears that the children of Se-ilor Montoya, who is a native Colombian, are domiciled in Colombia, and that they are subject to the obligations of Colombian citizenship. The fact that Señor Montoya is a naturalized British subject does not exempt him from the operation of the law of the State of his birth and natural allegiance while he resides in that State.”
- Mr. O’Leary, No. 11; March 31, 1847. To. Mr. O’Leary, No. 17; July 16, 1847. * Mr. O’Leary, No. 25; 148. To Mr. O’Leary, No. 13; 1848. * Mr. O’Leary, No. 49; 1848. To Mr. O’Leary, No. 3; 1849. * Mr. O’Leary, No. 26; 1855. * Mr. O’Leary, No. 36; 1855. * To Mr. O’Leary, No. 15; 1855. [* These papers are missing from the volumes.] Mr. Griffith, No. 80; September 2, 1861.↩
- To Mr. Griffith, No. 68; November 16, 1861.↩
- Mr. Griffith, No. 38; May 15, 1862.↩
- Mr. Griffith, No. 46; June 20, 1862.↩
- To Mr. Griffith, No. 29; September 30. 1862.↩
- Mr. O’Leary, No. 27; May 10, 1865.↩
- To Mr. O’Leary, No. 11; March 21, 1847.↩
- To Mr. O’Leary, No. 28; July 28, 1865.↩
- Mr. O’Leary, No. 65; October 20, 1865.↩
- To Mr. O’Leary, No. 6; December 21, 1865.↩