has American nationality, and hence he has two nationalities, one natural, the other acquired. . . . There is no law of

the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright."

To the same effect, as to the right of election, was the ruling of Secretary Evarts in 1879 in his instruction, above quoted, to our minister to Germany with respect to the brothers Boisseliers. [Footnote 18]

There were provisions similar to those in the treaty with Sweden in the naturalization treaty with Denmark of 1872, [Footnote 19] but Secretary Evarts evidently did not regard those provisions as inconsistent with the claim, which he sustained, of one born here of Danish parentage who was taken abroad by his parents but insisted upon hisAmerican citizenship when he arrived at his majority. [Footnote 20] These rulings, following closely upon the negotiation of these naturalization treaties, show beyond question that the treaties were not regarded as abrogating the right of election for which respondent here contends.

Later rulings were to the same effect. Thus, in 1890, in dealing with a native American citizen who, upon his own application, had been admitted to Danish citizenship during his minority, and who had not yet come of age, the Secretary of State, while recognizing that,

"when a citizen of the United States voluntarily becomes naturalized or renaturalized in a foreign country, he is to be regarded as having lost his rights as an American citizen,"

was careful to make the following qualifications in support of the right of election