Mr. Hay to Mr. Storer.
Washington , February 4, 1899 .
Sir: Your dispatch, No. 170, asking instructions in regard to the issuance of a passport upon the application made to you by Mr. Henry Louis Becker, has been received.
* * * * * * *
Upon this statement of facts you ask—
- 1.
- Does paragraph 153 of instructions to diplomatic officers direct that the existence of a former passport precludes inquiry outside the contents of the original application as to the right of applicant to a passport?
- 2.
- Does the presumed presentation of naturalization papers on application for a passport in 1893 always furnish sufficient evidence of their existence at all times in the future?
- 3.
- What is the effect of the statement of the applicant that he has never been naturalized?
- 4.
- Under the facts ascertained and reported shall your legation in the present case issue a new passport?
The facts stated in Mr. Becker’s present application as recited by you agree substantially with those appearing in his application of [Page 85] April 22, 1893, upon which passport No. 1247 was issued to him May 3, 1893, and of which application I inclose a copy for your information, together with Mr. Becker’s supplementary affidavit that he was a minor at the date of his father’s naturalization, a circumstance which appears in the body of his application.
Answering your first and second inquiries, it is usually expected that a person claiming citizenship through the naturalization of parents should, on each occasion of applying for a passport, produce the evidence by way of corroboration. The possession of a Department passport is, however, prima facie evidence of the applicant’s having previously produced to the Department the proof of the parents naturalization; and inability to produce that evidence at each subsequent application for a passport need not occasion refusal to grant one unless the circumstances of the case should raise such reasonable doubt in the mind of the envoy as to cause him to make further inquiry of the Department.
As to the third inquiry, the fact that a person claiming citizenship through the naturalization of a parent was not himself independently naturalized is quite immaterial. (See sec. 2172, Revised Statutes, which provides that the “children of parents who have been duly naturalized under any Jaw of the United States * * * being under the age of 21 years at the time of the naturalization of their parents, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens thereof.”)
Answering your fourth inquiry, it does not appear from your statement that Mr. Becker was warned by your predecessor at the time of the issuance of the legation passport, March 19, 1896, that failure to return within the declared term of two years might bar renewal of the passport.
Under the circumstances if Mr. Becker shall satisfactorily explain the causes preventing the execution of the purpose declared by him in 1896, and shall satisfy you of the bona fides of his intention now to return within two years hence, here to dwell and perform the duties of good citizenship, you would be warranted in issuing him a passport accompanied by a distinct warning that failure to carry out that intention would prejudice, and probably bar, the granting of any future passport to him while he continues to dwell abroad.
I may add that Mr. Becker’s statement to you that he would apply to some other legation for a passport is calculated to throw doubt upon the good faith of his present declaration to you regarding his intention to return.
Several cases of such evasion have been reported to the Department in the past, but it is not found practicable to apply a remedy by notifying all other missions of the rejection of a passport application by one of them. The Department’s circular of February 25, 1897, of which copy is inclosed for your more convenient information, requires applicants to declare whether they have applied elsewhere and been refused a passport. The good judgment of each envoy is trusted to scrutinize passport applications presented to him with a view of eliciting the facts and acting accordingly.
The retention of an applicant’s former passport in case of a refusal to issue a new one is, under the Department’s instructions, warranted when the facts elicited show that the holder has been illegally naturalized, and is therefore wrongfully in possession of such formal [Page 86] certification of citizenship. To retain a regularly issued passport when no fraud appears, and when its return is demanded by the party, is a doubtful proceeding, it being the property of the holder.
I am, etc.,