the local laws.

The case may thus present itself, and indeed frequently does, of a subject coming to the United States from a country in which we exercise extraterritorial rights and privileges, becoming naturalized, and thereupon returning to the country of his origin. He knows little or no English. He has not acquired American habits of thought. He returns to the land of his origin, mixes with his former friends and associates, but by virtue of his naturalization claims exemption as anAmerican citizen from local rules and regulations. His children, born after his return, he considers American citizens, and the United States may be called upon to protect generations who have never been in the United States, who perform no duties to it, and merely seek its protection in time of trouble.

Extraterritoriality, however, is a right which the United States may claim and exercise. It is, however, for the United States to determine. when it will exercise this sovereign right, and it is a question not of international law but of constitutional law of the United States under what circumstances and how far the right recognized will be claimed and exercised. As far as the United States is concerned it is not a question of international law but of internal or constitutional law. The United States, therefore, may decline to extend to naturalized citizens in extraterritorial regions indefinite protection, or indeed the status of citizen. By extending section 2 of the act of March 2, 1907, to extraterritorial regions, the Secretary of State has placed naturalized citizens of the United States upon an equal footing, and granted to them the same rights and no greater. The text of the circular follows:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, December 11, 1907. To the Diplomatic and Consular Officers of the United States in Turkish Dominions.

GENTLEMEN: Section 2 of the act of March 2, 1907, and paragraph 144 of the Diplomatic Instructions and Consular Regulations as amended by the Executive order of April 6, 1907, relative to expatriation and the protection of Americans abroad, are applicable to American citizens who reside in Turkish dominions.

Therefore, a naturalized American citizen formerly a Turkish subject who returns to Turkish dominions and there resides for a period of two years will be presumed to have ceased to be an American citizen, and a naturalized American citizen not formerly a Turkish subject who resides in Turkish dominions: for five years will be presumed to have ceased to be an American citizen.

The presumption may be overcome in either case by his presenting to a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States proof establishing the following facts:

(a) That his residence in Turkey is solely as a representative of American trade and commerce and that he intends eventually to return to the United States to reside; or

(b) That some unforeseen and controlling exigency beyond his power to foresee has prevented his carrying out a bona fide intention to return to the United States within the time limited by law, and that it is his intention to return and reside permanently in the United States immediately upon the removal of the preventing cause; or

(c) That he resides in a distinctively American community recognized as such by the Turkish Government; or

(d) That he resides in Turkish dominions as the regularly appointed missionary of a recognized American church organization.

The evidence required to overcome the presumption of expatriation must be of the specific facts and circumstances which bring the alleged ciitzen under one of the foregoing heads, and mere assertions, even under oath, of any of the enumerated reasons existing will not be accepted as sufficient.

Whenever evidence shall be produced to overcome the presumption of expatriation as indicated in this instruction the depositions and other proofs must be made in duplicate, one copy thereof being sent forthwith to this Department, and if the proofs have been presented to a consular officer he shall notify the embassy at Constantinople of the name of the person and of the facts concerning his residence abroad.

This instruction, in so far as it relates to the presumption of expatriation from residence in Turkey, supersedes the corresponding parts of the Department's circular instruction of April 19, 1907, entitled "Expatriation."

I am, etc.,

ELIHU ROOT.

The situation of naturalized missionaries in China will undoubtedly call for regulation and the extension of section 2 of the act of March 2, 1907, with necessary modifications, for Chinese subjects may not become citizens of the United States, which guarantee protection without permitting a fraudulent use of American citizenship.

THE REMISSION OF A PORTION OF THE CHINESE INDEMNITY

The joint resolution introduced in the Senate on January 9, 1908, is as follows:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is hereby authorized to consent to a modification of the bond for twenty-four million four hundred and forty thousand seven hundred and seventy-eight dollars and eighty-one cents, dated

December fifteenth, nineteen hundred and six, received from China pursuant to the protocol of September seventh, nineteen hundred and one, for indemnity against losses and expenses incurred by reason of the so-called Boxer disturbances in China during the year nineteen hundred, so that the total payment to be made by China under the said bond shall be limited to the sum of eleven million six hundred and fifty-five thousand four hundred and ninety-two dollars and sixtynine cents and interest at the stipulated rate of four per centum per annum, and that the remainder of the indemnity to which the United States is entitled under the said protocol and bond may be remitted as an act of friendship, such payments and remission to be at such times and in such manner as the President shall deem just.

The facts of the Boxer disturbances in China are too well known to be set forth in detail, but it is otherwise with the object for which the Boxer indemnity was asked and received by the Department of State, and the manner in which private claims have been dealt with by the Department in pursuance of that object. For this reason the following brief observations upon the distribution of the indemnity, as well as a summary of the various steps in the negotiations relating to the indemnity, may be of general interest.

By the joint note of December 22, 1900 (see Senate Document No. 67, 57th Cong., 1st sess., p. 59), the powers presented their demands to the Imperial Chinese Government. The note begins:

--

During the months of May, June, July, and August of the present year serious disturbances broke out in the northern provinces of China and crimes unprecedented in human history — crimes against the law of nations, against the laws of humanity, and against civilization were committed under peculiarly odious circumstances. The principal of these crimes were the following:

These are,

Under four heads are placed the detailed grievances. first, the murder of the Germain minister; second, the attack and siege of the legations, participated in by Chinese troops; third, the murder of the chancellor of the Japanese legation, the attack upon and murder of other foreigners at Peking and in several provinces, and the pillage and destruction of their establishments; fourth, the desecration of foreign cemeteries, the resistance of Chinese troops to the relief expedition, etc.

Then follows the list of conditions of peace imposed by the powers. The sixth item thereof, which provides for the indemnification of pri-. vate parties, stands as follows:

Equitable indemnities for governments, societies, companies, and private individuals, as well as for Chinese who have suffered during the late events in person or in property in consequence of their being in the service of foreigners.

China shall adopt financial measures acceptable to the powers for the purpose of guaranteeing the payment of said indemnities and the interest and amortization of the loans.

An international commission on indemnities was appointed to lay down the principles upon which private claims should be dealt with. They submitted their report to the diplomatic corps and it was approved ad referendum. The Department of State (instruction to Peking No. 515, May 3, 1902) expressed its judgment that the rules thus laid down. would be found suggestive and instructive. They were not, however, agreed to by all the powers, and were not, therefore, binding internationally.

In the instruction referred to above the Department also remarked that all merely speculative or imaginary claims or elements of damages. were to be excluded from consideration.

Item C of this report (see Senate Document No. 67, 57th Cong., 1st sess., p. 106) records the manner in which it was deemed proper that private claims should be dealt with. It says:

MERCHANTS. - Private property of merchants.

Real estate destroyed or damaged, including temporary housing and repairs, expert surveys for determining amount of damages, etc.

Furniture.

Usual and inevitable salary of employees whose services could not be turned to account.

Unavoidable office expenses not made good in consequence of the events. Stock in trade, goods, provisions, samples possessing pecuniary value, destroyed or deteriorated.

Extraordinary cost of storage and reshipment.

Debts recognized as valid which can no longer be recovered.

Bank notes lost or which cannot be cashed.

Specie, bills payable at sight.

Broken contracts of all descriptions, losses suffered in consequence of the nonexecution of contracts entered into for articles of exportation or importation. Deposits of money in telegraph offices or in banks. Advances to Chinese merchants who have become insolvent in consequence of the events.

Extraordinary cost of insurance rendered necessary by the events referred to. Goods requisitioned for foreign troops for defensive works.

When the two American commissioners were appointed to investigate and determine American claims, they were given the following instructions, from which it will be seen that the rule quoted above was adopted on behalf of the United States to govern the action of its commissioners (Mr. Conger to Mr. Bainbridge, No. 1135, March 14, 1902):

In compliance with instruction No. 435, dated January 14, 1902, of the Department of State, I hereby designate you and Consul J. W. Ragsdale, of Tientsin, as commissioners to investigate and determine what amount should be allowed on each and all of the claims of citizens of the United States against the Chinese Government, growing out of the so-called "Boxer" uprising of 1900; and also on the claims of Chinese who, during the same events, suffered in person or property in consequence of their being in the service of citizens of the United States.

This commission will meet first in Peking, and proceed thence to such other localities as the exigencies of careful and intelligent examination demand. Reasonable notice of the sittings of the commission in the several localities should be given to the claimants in advance.

The commission will be governed by the rules and practices usually required in proving and allowing claims of citizens of the United States under like circumstances; together with the regulations prepared by the committee on indemnities and approved by the representatives of the powers in Peking on March 13, 1901.

The commissioners will make a report on each claim, reciting the evidence of citizenship and of the fact and amount of loss or damage upon which the claim is based.

Their recommendations will be submitted for revision to the United States minister in China, and the whole will be subject to the final revision and approval of the Department of State.

The following is quoted from the final report of the American commissioners, addressed to the minister at Peking and dated November 17, 1902:

Indemnity claims have been filed by American merchants for goods destroyed, for losses through breach of contracts, through the death, disappearance, or insolvency of Chinese debtors, through the general interruption of business, depreciation in value of stock, and for extraordinary cost of storage and insurance. Interest has been claimed on capital employed in carrying stock rendered idle in consequence of the disturbances.

The commission has allowed as compensation for goods destroyed their actual value at the time of destruction. It has recognized rights vested by existing contracts and allowed compensation for the actual injury sustained through broken contracts due to the events, including expense of carrying undelivered merchandise, counting interest as part of such expense. But the commission has disallowed contractual claims where the contracts have been ascertained to be capable of fulfillment through the continued solvency of parties. Claims for losses through the general interruption of business have not been allowed; nor has interest been allowed on capital invested in goods for sale in open market not contracted for in delivery. Losses resulting from debts recognized as valid but no longer recoverable because of the death, disappearance, or bankruptcy of Chinese debtors due to the uprising have been compensated. Extraordinary cost of storage and insurance has been allowed.