Mr. Grant to Mr. Blaine.
Vienna, February 24, 1890. (Received March 17.)
Sir: Having found it necessary on more than one occasion recently to ask special instructions relative to the propriety of issuing a certain passport, it is with considerable reluctance that I again recur to the subject, being most unwilling to appear to trespass on the patience of the Department. It is, however, of importance, I think, that this legation should receive for its guidance the Department’s opinion on one or two points relating to the issuance of passports in general, and to the application for a passport of one Bela Washington Fornét in particular. From the course recently taken by the authorities here in ordering the expulsion from this empire of certain naturalized citizens of Austro-Hungarian birth, and from a conversation which I had with Baron Pasetti, chief of section at the foreign office, I am convinced that the purpose of this Government is to deny, under certain circumstances, to former subjects of this empire who have been naturalized, not only in the United States, but in other countries, the right of domicile within the dominions of Austria-Hungary. It would seem that no restriction whatever is placed upon the emigration of such subjects of this crown as may choose to seek their fortune in other lands, or to their subsequent assumption of allegiance to the government within whose territories they may have found homes. When, however, such former subjects of this empire have emigrated at or just before the age when they would be required, under the laws of this country, to enter the army, this Government seriously objects to their return to the land of their nativity to engage in business, or otherwise to establish a residence, with an acquired allegiance to some foreign state, such a course, it is contended, is calculated to disturb public order, and to have an injurious effect generally upon the military system of this Government, inasmuch as the very presence among their old associates of these naturalized citizens or subjects of other powers operates to produce irritation and dissatisfaction in a community which has continued faithful in its allegiance to this empire. To state the situation more intelligibly, let us suppose, as is frequently the case, that a young Viennese emigrates to America when he is seventeen years of age. After remaining in the United States for five or six years, during which time he may have had the opportunity of gaining considerable business experience, he takes out his naturalization papers, and then at the age of twenty-two or twenty-three years returns to Vienna and engages in business on his own account. The companions of his youth, who have not emigrated, are, and have been for some years, rendering, and will for several more be required to render, military duty, the age at which subjects of the imperial and royal Government of Austria-Hungary are cited for service in the army being eighteen years, and the period of service continuing for nine years. It is apparent that these soldiers of the empire are at a great disadvantage when, in after years (their terms of military service having been completed), they attempt to enter into competition in business with the naturalized American who was formerly their associate. Not only has the latter secured the start on them by reason of the actual time during which he has been doing business for himself while they were in the army, but also by reason of the business education acquired in America during his minority, which he uses to advantage in the conduct of his affairs here. It moreover becomes a matter of every-day observation, that while the naturalized American [Page 7] is enjoying all the privileges belonging to, he is subjected to none of the burdens imposed upon, an Austrian subject.
While the naturalized American may not go so far as to parade and boast of the enviable position to which he has attained (though it is said this is not infrequently the case), his very presence is, as I have remarked above, a source of discomfort to his quondam friends, and tends to create discontent and possibly resentment towards a form of government believed to be for the best interests of this people. It is on these grounds that the imperial and royal ministry is decided in its objection to the return, during the military period, of a former subject of the empire who has acquired a foreign allegiance, and it is my impression, derived from informal conversations on the subject in Klamer’s case (Instruction No. 25, of October 8, 1889), that this Government reserves to itself, notwithstanding treaties of naturalization, etc., the right to expel such naturalized citizens or subjects of foreign powers, whenever it believes its interests demand such action. A decree of expulsion is not, it is argued, intended as a punishment of a foreigner, but as a means of self-protection. It would seem to be almost superfluous for me to observe that the class of citizens herein referred to, while regarded as dangerous to this Government, are certainly useless to that of the United States. Year after year they maintain a residence abroad, unless interfered with, enjoying certain immunities by virtue of their American citizenship, and rendering no equivalent whatever to the United States Government. Such being the situation of the Austro-Hungarian authorities with respect to this subject, and the same having become, it is supposed, rather generally known through the issuance of several decrees of expulsion, naturalized American citizens residing in this empire have been spurred to unusual activity in providing themselves with passports in order that they may be fortified at least to that extent in resisting any interference with their rights of domicile.
The facts set forth in many of the applications from such naturalized American citizens give rise to serious doubts as to their right to receive passports, and whereas I should regret to accord the protection of the Government where it is not due, it would concern me still more to decline to grant a passport, through a misinterpretation of laws and facts, where the applicant was justly entitled to it. Certain questions of fact in regard to the issuance of passports, not appearing to be covered by the regulations in regard thereto, I have the honor to ask the Department’s views on the following points:
- First. For how many years may a citizen of the United States reside abroad without losing his American domicile ?
- Second. Would any limit of time in this regard apply to native as well as naturalized citizens, or only to the latter ?
- Third. Applicants for passports being required to state under oath the time within which they intend returning to the United States, what is the longest period of time they may fix ?
- Fourth. If an applicant refuses to swear that he will return to the United States within a fixed time, should a passport be refused him ?
- Fifth. Does the limit of time referred to in questions three and four, apply equally to native born and to naturalized citizens ?
- Sixth. If application is made to me for the renewal of a passport, and it appears on examination that the time has expired within which the bearer of the old passport stated his purpose of returning to the United States, and that nevertheless he has not been to America to resume his duties of citizenship, should a renewal of his passport be declined ?
I can readily understand that answers to some, and perhaps to all, these questions would depend largely upon the circumstances of each individual case, and, if the Department should feel satisfied to have me do so, I will pass upon each application to the best of my ability in the light of general instructions sent to the legation during the incumbency of some of my predecessors and animated by a spirit of perfect fairness to the applicant. At the same time such specific principles, suggested by the above questions, as the Department may be able to lay down for my guidance would of course be most acceptable.
The case of Bela Washington Fornét, referred to in the first paragraph of this dispatch, is as follows:
Fornét was born in New York July 19, 1857, his parents being at the time naturalized American citizens. He left the United States on the 15th of October, 1864, when only a little more than seven years old, since which time he does not appear to have returned to the land of his nativity. When about twenty-four years of age he appeared before the mayor of Budapesth and the United States vice-consul at Budapesth, of which city he is a resident, and declared his purpose of retaining his American citizenship. He has resided abroad about twenty-six years and apparently has never before applied for a passport. It is evident that he has never rendered the duties of citizenship to the United States, and it is submitted whether he is entitled to the protection of the Government. I have declined to grant his application for a passport in advance of instructions, and now respectfully request your views in his case. His reason for applying for the passport is that he wishes to go to America. Observing that such a document would not, it is believed, be required of him to carry out his alleged purpose, and inclosing a copy of his application,
I have, etc.,