John Russell Young to Charles Seymour, February 23, 1885

Mr. Young to Mr. Seymour.

Sir: As a further reference to your dispatch No. 101, dated January 24, 1885, I have the honor to say that the question you there present has received careful consideration. The statute you quote is clear as to the intent of the law, namely: That the children of American citizens born abroad share the nationality of their father, unless they accept naturalization from another power. The right is inherent, and so long as the holder maintains it we cannot take it from him. To do so would be virtual outlawry. The case as you present it, in my opinion, rests largely upon evidence; and that of course you are in a position to obtain. If it should appear (1) that Pearson’s father was an American, who had not renounced his nationality; (2) that Pearson himself had not accepted naturalization from another power, I do not see how we can deprive him of his citizenship.

A question of the same kind has arisen at Amoy. The consul at Amoy reported to the legation that a resident at that port was the son of a negro who had been born in Maine. The resident had never been in the United States, but was a native of Singapore, if I remember. He had been registered in 1861, had been tried for an infraction of bur laws by an American consul and American assessors, found guilty, and imprisoned for a year. The consul at Amoy held, however, that as the Dred Scott decision before the war had deprived negroes of their rights as citizens, and as the person in question had not been in the United States since the war,’ had, in fact, never been there, he rested under the ban of that decree. I found it impossible to accept this view of the law, and the same difficulty was shared by the Department, which approved my action. In that case, as in yours, the question is a matter of evidence. The consul at Amoy may be able to ascertain that the claim of American parentage is unfounded, and that when he told the legation that the father was born in Maine he was not correctly informed. I think he is giving a good deal of time to the inquiry, but with what result remains to be seen.

If the consul at Amoy had given his attention to the evidence instead of confirming the Dred Scott decision his case might now have been determined. My advice in Pearson’s case would be to look well into the evidence. I am not anxious to have every adventurer who wishes to use the consulate for purposes of gain or revenge a citizen of the United States. I should, when any such claim is advanced, take the utmost pains to ascertain the facts. I should throw upon the applicant the burden of satisfying every doubt that might arise in your mind as to the validity of his claim. All doubt removed, the law leaves you no option.

In the case at Amoy the consul held, and holds, that the bad character of the claimant made it undesirable that he should be a citizen. I should assent to that as a moral precept, but, unfortunately, character is not an issue.

As to the question you suggest, namely, how far the fact of a child being born out of wedlock may affect his nationality, I speak somewhat with reserve. But my opinion is that the misfortune of an illegitimate birth cannot deprive a man of his nationality. It may interfere with rights of property and inheritance, but citizenship remains with him. He is a part of society. The laws are made for the protection of society. He must submit to them, and submission involves protection.

As I have said, the question in Pearson’s case is one of evidence. The law is clear. If after due examination you find the facts to be as you present them, in my judgment I do not see how, under section 1993 of the Revised Statutes, you can refuse to regard Pearson as an American citizen.

I am, &c.,