the obligation to protect such citizens residing abroad after the limit of two or five years, as the case may be, when their residence there is not shown to be of such a character as to warrant the presumption that they intend to return and reside in the United States and thus bear the burdens as well as enjoy the rights and privileges incident to citizenship. Until the time limit has expired the presumption is that they intend to return; after that time it is presumed that they do not intend to return, and it becomes necessary, in order that they may continue to have this Government's protection, to show affirmatively, in accordance with the regulations of the State Department made in pursuance of the act, that it is their bona fide intention to return to the United States to live. Obviously, therefore, the essential thing under the act is the intention to return to and reside in the United States. The highest proof of such an intention is the actual return and residence of such a person, amounting as it does to a demonstration. It is not to be held, therefore, that the act would apply to a case of this kind unless the language used or the circumstances attending its passage compel such a conclusion. The title, language, and history of the act, however, support the views just stated as to its construction.

As above stated, the act is entitled "An act in reference to the expatriation of citizens and their protection abroad,” and it appears that it was passed at the instance of the Department of State. In reporting the bill to the House, the Committee on Foreign Affairs said (H. Report 6431, 59th Cong., 2d sess.):

"This bill follows in its general lines the recommendations of the Department of State.

* *

*

"Perhaps the most important provision of the bill is desired by the State Department to guard against complications in which this country has often been involved. All desire that the flag of this country should protect an American citizen to the fullest extent. But none of us desire that some foreigner who does not intend to cast his lot permanently with us should endeavor to avail himself of the flag as a fraudulent protection. Many foreigners come here,

become naturalized, and then return to their own countries or migrate to other parts of the world without any intention of returning to this country. They have not become citizens in good faith, but they seek to avail themselves of the protection of our citizenship in avoiding responsibility to which they may be subjected in other parts of the world. "This is not right. The citizenship of the United States should not be sought or possessed for commercial or dishonest ends. To guard against this evil, this bill provides that a naturalized citizen who leaves this country and dwells elsewhere continuously for five years shall be presumed to have abandoned his citizenship. This presumption can be overcome, but such a provision as this would be a great assistance to the Department of State, would avoid possibilities of international complications, and will prevent those who are not entitled to its protection from dishonestly hiding under the American flag."

As further showing the purpose of the act, the remarks of Mr. Perkins, who reported the bill from the committee and had charge of it in the House, are pertinent. In the course of debate it was said (Cong. Rec., vol. 41, pt. 2, p. 1466):

"Mr. BENNET of New York. Mr. Speaker, I entirely agree with the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Bonynge] as to section 3. I think it is too broad. In addition to the consideration that he urged upon the House, there is also the consideration of property rights and of property rights. inhering in American-born citizens who might take through these foreign-born naturalized citizens. This bill will apply to a man who has now been abroad four years and eleven months, and if he remains abroad the other month he would be forced, under this statute, to become no longer a citizen of the United States, but a citizen of the country where he was.

"Mr. PERKINS. Allow me to correct the gentleman. That certainly is not the result of the statute at all.

"Mr. BENNET of New York. Why not?

"Mr. PERKINS. The statute provides that, having remained there five years continuously, there shall be a presumption which, unless he satisfies the officers of the State

Department, their consuls, or ministers to the contrary, would authorize the State Department to refuse to extend him protection. It can not affect any other rights, which, of course, he can present in court. No presumption is conclusive on a court. It is a mere presumption, but the presumption would protect the State Department. That is the object of the bill and the result of the bill and the only result of it."

The fact that the act only authorizes the submission of proof for the purpose of overcoming the presumption as to noncitizenship raised thereby to diplomatic and consular officers of the United States, who necessarily reside abroad, and makes no provision in respect to naturalized citizens coming within the purview of the act who return to the United States, is a further evidence that Congress did not intend the act to apply to a case of this kind. To hold that it did, would produce the absurdity of a naturalized citizen seeking to reenter the United States being held to have ceased to be such, and possibly denied admission, because he had failed to make proof before the proper diplomatic or consular officer abroad of his intention to return to the United States.

As above shown, the presumption as to noncitizenship raised by the act is created for the purpose of relieving the State Department of protecting naturalized citizens abroad when the conditions are apparently such as to indicate that they have no bona fide intention to return to and reside in the United States. When a citizen returns to the United States, the necessity for such protection no longer exists, and it is fair to assume that with the cessation of the necessity the presumption created by the act also

ceases.

In my opinion, therefore, under the facts stated, Jebran Gossin has not lost his citizenship, and his wife, Nazara Gossin, upon the assumption above stated that she herself might be lawfully naturalized, is also to be deemed a citizen.

Respectfully,

GEORGE W. WICKERSHAM,

The SECRETARY OF COMMERCE AND LABOR.

REMOVAL OF FLOATING DRY DOCK FROM ALGIERS, LA., TO GUANTANAMO, CUBA.

The President has no power, in the absence of an emergency making such action imperative for the protection of the interests of the Government, to remove to the naval station at Guantanamo, Cuba, the floating dry dock which was constructed and located at the naval reservation at Algiers, La., under the provisions of the act of May 4, 1898 (30 Stat. 379).

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
December 7, 1910.

SIR: I have the honor to reply to your letter of November 23, 1910, reading as follows:

"This department has in contemplation the removal of a floating dry dock from Algiers (New Orleans), La., where it is now located, to the naval station, Guantanamo, Cuba, at which latter station it would, in my opinion, after personal consideration and investigation, be better adapted for fulfillment of the object for which it was constructed. Some doubt, however, exists as to the legality of making the contemplated change in the location of this dock, because of the provision in the act of May 4, 1898, authorizing its construction, that said dock was 'to be located at the naval reservation at Algiers, Louisiana.'

"I have the honor to request your opinion as to whether the language quoted from the act of May 4, 1898, or any other provision of law, probihits the removal of the floating dry dock in question from Algiers, La., and the locating of same, either temporarily or indefinitely, at the naval station, Guantanamo, Cuba."

The provision to be construed is contained in the naval appropriation act approved May 4, 1898 (30 Stat. 369, 379), under the heading "Repairs and preservation at navy yards and stations," and reads as follows:

"Toward the construction of one steel floating dock of domestic manufacture which shall be a combined floating and graving dock, two hundred thousand dollars, said dock to be located at the naval reservation at Algiers, Louisiana, to be capable of lifting a vessel of fifteen thousand tons displacement, and twenty-seven feet draft of

water, to cost, including moorings and wharf, eight hundred and fifty thousand dollars."

The final appropriation for the completion of this dry dock was made by the naval appropriation act approved June 7, 1900 (31 Stat. 684, 696), as follows:

"Dry dock, Algiers, Louisiana: To complete floating dry dock for Algiers, Louisiana, six hundred and fifty thousand dollars, to be immediately available."

In determining the question presented, it is necessary to consider the previous legislation of Congress, which culminated in the authorization of the construction of a floating dry dock at Algiers, La.

The naval appropriation act of September 7, 1888 (25 Stat. 458, 463), contained the following provision under the heading "Bureau of Yards and Docks:"

"For the expenses of a commission of three officers, to be appointed by the Secretary of the Navy, to report as to the most desirable location on or near the coast of the Gulf of Mexico and the south Atlantic coast for navy-yards and dry docks and for the expenses of sounding and surveying and estimating expenses, fifteen thousand dollars.

* * * "

The naval appropriation act approved June 30, 1890 (26 Stat. 189, 196), provided:

"And the President be, and he hereby is, required to appoint a commission composed of two competent naval officers, one competent army officer, and two competent persons from civil life, whose duty it shall be to select a suitable site, having due regard to commercial and naval interests, for a dry dock at some point on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico or the waters connected therewith; and having selected such site shall if upon private lands, estimate its value and ascertain as nearly as practicable the cost for which it can be purchased or acquired, and of their proceedings and action make full and detailed report to the President, and the President shall transmit such report with his recommendations to Congress. That to defray the expenses of such commissions the sum of fifteen thousand dollars, or so much thereof as may be necessary, be, and the same is hereby, appropriated.”