the right of expatriation is lacking. That right is fittingly recognized where a child born here, who may be, or may become, subject to a dual nationality, elects on attaining majority citizenship in the country to which he has been removed. But there is no basis for invoking the doctrine of expatriation where native citizen who is removed to his parents' country of origin during minority returns here on his majority and elects to remain and to maintain his American citizenship. Instead of being inconsistent with the right of expatriation, the principle which permits that election conserves and applies it.

The question, then, is whether this well recognized right of election has been destroyed by treaty or statute.

Third. Petitioners invoke our treaty with Sweden of 1869. [Footnote 10] Thistreaty was one of a series of naturalization treaties with similar terms, which were negotiated with various countries between 1868 and 1872. [Footnote 11] The relevant portions of the text of the treaty with Sweden, and of the accompanying protocol, are set forth in the margin. [Footnote 12]

The treaty manifestly deals with expatriation and the recognition of naturalization by the respective powers. The recital states its purpose, that is, "to regulate the citizenship of those persons who emigrate" to one country from the other. The terms of the treaty are directed to that purpose, and are appropriate to the recognition of the status of those who voluntarily take up their residence for the prescribed period in the country to which they emigrate. Article I of the treaty provides:

"Citizens