a Swede who has become a naturalized citizen of the United States and later renews his residence in Sweden "without the intent to return to America." And

it provides that the intent not to return may be held to exist when the person "so naturalized" resides more than two years in Sweden. This does not appear to be applicable to respondent, who was born in the United States, but, apart from that, the intent not to return could not properly be attributed to her during minority, and if it were so attributed, the presumption would be rebutted by the election to return to the United States at majority. Compare United States v. Howe, 231 F. 546, 549. [Footnote 14]

The views we have expressed find support in the construction placedupon the naturalization treaties of 1868 to 1872 [Footnote 15] in the period following their ratification. The first of those treaties was made in 1868 with the North German Confederation, [Footnote 16] and contained provisions similar to those found in the treaty with Sweden. But it was under this German treaty that Steinkauler's case arose in 1875, to which we have already referred, where Attorney General Pierrepont upheld the right of election, saying: [Footnote 17]

"Under the treaty, and in harmony with the American doctrine, it is clear that Steinkauler, the father, abandoned his naturalization in America and became a German subject (his son being yet a minor) and that, by virtue of German laws, the son acquired German nationality. It is equally clear that the son, by birth,