This same principle at times has operated against American diplomatic representatives. Thus in 1885 President Cleveland appointed A. M. Keiley to be minister to Italy. The Italian government objected to him, and declined to receive him, on the ground that in 1871, at Richmond, Virginia, he had publicly denounced the government of Victor Emmanuel for taking possession of the States of the Church and of the city of Rome as the capital of United Italy. The American government was compelled to acquiesce in this action of Italy, and the offensive appointment was withdrawn. With strange fatuity, however, Cleveland then appointed Keiley to be minister to AustriaHungary, only to have that power in turn refuse to receive him on the ground that Mrs. Keiley was a Jew and would therefore be unacceptable as a member of court society at Vienna. This appointment had therefore also to be withdrawn, and the mission to Vienna was left vacant for more than year, while Keiley was consoled for his rejection by being made a judge of the international tribunals in Egypt. It may also be recalled that in 1877 Thomas Russell, the American minister to Venezuela, was dismissed by the Government of that country because of the publication of one of his reports to the state department containing what the Venezuelans considered to be a calumnious and insulting reflection upon that country. In 1891, also, China refused to receive Henry M. Blair as minister, because of the prominent part which as a senator he had taken in legislation for the exclusion of Chinese immigration.

The international tribunals in Egypt, to which reference has been made, were established in 1876, as substitutes for the consular courts in maintaining the principle of extraterritorial jurisdiction. They comprised a complete judicial system, at Cairo and Alexandria, for the trial of cases occurring between foreigners and natives. The United States joined with the European powers in constituting them, and a number of American judges were appointed to them.

Be

The question of the right of expatriation and of the conditions of naturalization was taken up for final settlement in 1868. fore that time, as already related, the common-law rule generally prevailed, that expatriation was not purely voluntary, but could be effected only with the consent of the Government whose

allegiance the subject wished to renounce. But the enormous increase of immigration to the United States, consisting almost exclusively of persons who wished to become citizens of this country and who had not obtained the consent of their old home Governments to such expatriation, in time moved the United States government to reverse its policy and to recognize for itself and to demand from others recognition of the right of voluntary expatriation. That change of policy was of course dictated purely by selfish interest. The United States wanted to receive these new citizens, and also to be able legally to protect them as its own citizens at home and abroad.

In 1868, then, Congress enacted laws on the subject, declaring the right of voluntary expatriation, and negotiations were entered into with various countries, particularly those from which most immigration came, to secure their recognition of the same principle, a principle exactly contrary to that which had generally prevailed throughout the world from time out of mind. The first treaty to that effect was made on February 22, 1868, with the North German Confederation, and it was followed with similar treaties with Bavaria, Baden, Wuertemburg, and Hesse, all in that same year and all negotiated by George Bancroft, the United States minister at Berlin. Under them it was provided that a citizen or subject of one country who Ishould have become naturalized under the laws of the other, and should have resided there uninterruptedly for five years, should be considered to have become in all respects a citizen or subject of the latter country. The German Empire on its formation in 1871 insisted and subsequently maintained that none of the treaties applied to the so-called Reichsland of Alsace-Lorraine, which was owned by the whole empire and was in a status comparable with that of American territories owned by the United States but not yet admitted to the Federal Union; and it therefore required that release from the old nationality should in every case be secured, by special petition, before the validity of American naturalization of a Reichslander would be recognized. In 1911 Alsace-Lorraine was promoted from its territorial status to be one of the constituent Federal States of the German Empire, and then it was reasonably to be assumed that that exception from the expatriation rule lapsed, and that

immigrants to the United States from that country could voluntarily expatriate themselves in five years, on equal terms with those from the other German States.

Similar treaties concerning expatriation and naturalization were made with Belgium in 1868, with Sweden and Norway in 1869, with Great Britain and with Austria-Hungary in 1870, and with Denmark in 1872. On various occasions, however, there arose controversies, especially with the German government, concerning the status of young men who had fled to the United States to escape compulsory military service. It was insisted by the German government that such men were in fact lawbreakers, and that they were subject to being arrested if they should return to Germany, and to being compelled either to serve in the army or to suffer the legal penalty of their evasion of that duty.

The principle was established in 1872 that the United States would not receive paupers or "assisted" immigrants, sent hither by foreign governments or charitable organizations. In after years much vigilance was required for the enforcement of this salutary rule, as organized efforts were made to treat the United States as the common dumping ground of the world's paupers, wastrels, and other defective classes. In 1875 the importation of laborers under contract was prohibited, and in 1891 there were made further restrictions against idiots, insane persons, paupers, criminals, diseased persons, polygamists, and assisted immigrants. In 1884 the imposition of head money upon immigrants was abolished.

The increase of immigration to this country greatly enhanced, also, interest in the subject of extradition, and many more or less serious controversies arose over it, both in demands by the United States for the return of fugitive Americans and in demands from other countries for the surrender of criminals who had escaped from them amid the multitude of emigrants. Although there has never been any judicial determination of the case, it has always been accepted as a fundamental principle that extradition, either demanded or granted, must be an act of the National Government and not of a single State, and that rule has invariably been followed. At an early date, as already recorded, extradition for certain offenses was provided