Mr. Chayes.

to come under this section, the citizen or the U.S. citizen must offer his allegiance to the foreign state and the foreign state must accept it.

Mr. Dulles.

There has to be action on both sides. Unilateral action is not enough if the affirmation is not accepted.

Mr. Chayes.

That is the way I read the cases. Now, of course, if it comes before, if the oath is taken before an official of the foreign state that is authorized to take oaths of allegiance, why then nothing more is needed than that. But making an oath or statement of allegiance to another American or to a private party, whatever his nationality, has been held not to fall within 349 (a) (2).

Mr. Coleman.

Do you know whether Oswald had to make any statement or take any oath when he got employment in the Soviet Union?

Mr. Chayes.

I don't personally, but it may have been inquired into by the consul when Oswald came back for a renewal passport.
I think the record shows that it was concluded that there was no evidence that he became a naturalized-Soviet citizen, and so far as I know, there is no evidence that he in any other way took an oath of allegiance of the kind that would bring him under 349(a) (2).
Even if he had had to do so, for example, in connection with his employment, there are cases which may say that that is not a voluntary oath if it is done out of economic necessity and it will not, therefore, serve to expatriate. See Insogna v. Dulles, 116 F. Supp. 473 (D.D.C. 1953); Stipa v. Dulles, 233 F. 2d 551 (3d Cir. 1956); and Bruni v. Dulles, 235 F. 2d 855 (D.C. Cir. 1956). In at least one other case, Mendelsohn v. Dulles, 207 F. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 1953), a court held that the plaintiff had not expatriated himself by residing abroad for more than 5 years since he had remained abroad to care for his sick wife, who was too ill to travel.

Representative Ford.

I think it would be helpful wherever you say, Mr. Chayes, there are cases, that the record show the citation of the cases.

Mr. Chayes.

I think most of the cases that I am relying on are cited in the memorandum to which I am referring. But there may be others that I am recollecting. If I could have a chance to review the transcript, I will submit exact citations in each case.

Representative Ford.

I think that would be very helpful. Otherwise I think the record is---

Mr. Chayes.

Yes; I agree.

Representative Ford.

Is not clear or not complete, and as far as I am concerned, and I think the Commission would agree, that you should review the transcript to supply those citations for those particular categories of cases.

Mr. Chayes.

I will be very glad to do so, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Coleman.

Now do you want to address yourself to section 349 (a) (1)?

Mr. Chayes.

Well (a) (1) is obtaining naturalization, and there just wasn't any indication, there wasn't any evidence at all that he had become a naturalized Soviet citizen.
We knew that he applied for naturalization, but even on the basis of his Soviet documents he had not been given Soviet citizenship.

Mr. Coleman.

I take it your testimony is that after reviewing all of the files, your office has determined that Oswald committed no act which would justify the Department stating that he had expatriated himself.

Mr. Chayes.

I think that is right. I more than think that is right. I know that is right. We have reached the conclusion, and I personally have reached the conclusion, that Oswald's actions in the Soviet Union, although he may very well have wanted to expatriate himself at one time or another, did not succeed in doing that.
I think for the record I would like to read here a citation from the case of Stipa v. Dulles decided by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit---the citation is at 233 F. 2d. 551--which gives some idea of the general attitude with which the courts approach expatriation cases. In that case it said:
The burden of proving expatriation generally is upon the defendant who
affirmatively alleges it [that is the Secretary of State] and the burden is a heavy
one. Factual doubts are to be resolved in favor of citizenship. The burden of
proof on the Government in an expatriation case is like that in denaturalization.

The evidence must be clear, unequivocal and convincing.