embassy, and the consulates in Germany, should indicate a purpose to hold all American citizens of German origin, who emigrated during minority, amenable to the imputation of intention to evade military service, no matter what their age may have been at the time of emigration. Whilst it may be licit to deduce from the facts of any particular case that the emigration of the minor was for the sole purpose of evading military service and that conditions exist in his instance which make his return to and sojourn in his native place detrimental to public order or interests, the application of this exceptional procedure to all minor emigrants would not be in consonance with the spirit and intent of the existing conventions of naturalization between the two countries, and would in fact almost amount to the injection into the treaty stipulations of a requirement of prior consent to change of allegiance, a requirement not admitted by the negotiators of those conventions. I am, etc., JOHN HAY. No. 1542.] Mr. White to Mr. Hay. EMBASSY OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt this morning of your instruction No. 1159, referring to the expulsion case of Max Friedrich Schaaf, and in this connection to report that the embassy's dispatch No. 1510, with regard to this case contained practically the whole (not a summary) of the foreign office's note in question. Of late the foreign office has refrained from entering upon any discussion of such cases. The position taken by the royal Prussian authorities is that it is to be presumed that any one who emigrates from Prussia without having performed military service emigrated for the purpose of evading such service, the age of the person in question at the time of his emigration not being taken into account. The Prussian authorities hold that no such person should be allowed to settle in Prussia or to make a prolonged visit in that country while still of an age when, had he remained a Prussian subject, he might be called upon for military service. They consider that the provisions of the Bancroft treaties are sufficiently complied with if the person in question is allowed to visit his former home and to remain there a few weeks; and of late years, in certain parts of the country, expulsion orders have become. more or less frequent. The question of having obtained permission to change allegiance does not appear to influence the case, the idea being merely that a person should not be able, through a few years' residence abroad and naturalization in a foreign country, to return to his native place and to there sojourn free from the duties and obligations of other men of the same age who have lived there continuously. It sometimes happens, of course, that local officials show too much zeal and that there is real hardship connected with a case of expulsion, but it must not be forgotten that the number of persons expelled or otherwise molested on account of their not having performed military service is relatively very small when considered in connection with the great number of American citizens of German origin who visit their former homes every year. In Germany a record is kept of every male child born in the country. At the beginning of each calendar year official notice is published to the effect that all males born during the twentieth preceding calendar year are to report for examination as to their fitness for military service. At the end of the year proceedings are taken against all those who have failed to report, and they are all sentenced to pay a fine or undergo imprisonment, and warrants are issued for their arrest. When such a person returns from the United States or any other country, unless the fact of his change of nationality is recorded and his name has been taken from the lists, he is liable at any time to be called upon to pay the fine, the same being almost invariably refunded, in the case of an American citizen, upon intervention being made by the embassy. In Zahl's case he was probably sentenced several years before he became a citizen of the United States. In this connection I beg to call attention to Mr. Kasson's dispatch No. 124, of January 6, 1885, and to the inclosures therein. (F. Rels. 1885, p. 392.) I am, etc., ANDREW D. White. LIABILITY OF NATURALIZED CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES EXPATRIATION LAWS DEPARTMENT OF STATE, OF THEIR Washington, January 23, 1901. NOTICE TO AMERICAN CITIZENS FORMERLY SUBJECTS OF GERMANY WHO CONTEMPLATE RETURNING TO THAT COUNTRY. The information given below is believed to be correct, yet is not to be considered as official, as it relates to the laws and regulations of a foreign country. A German subject is liable to military service from the time he has completed the 17th year of his age until his 45th year, active service lasting from the beginning of his 20th year to the end of his 36th year. A German who emigrates before he is 17 years old, or before he has been actually called upon to appear before the military authorities, may, after a residence in the United States of five years and after due naturalization, return to Germany on a visit, but his right to remain in his former home is denied by Germany, and he may be expelled after a brief sojourn on the ground that he left Germany merely to evade military service. It is not safe for a person who has once been expelled to return to Germany without having obtained permission to do so in advance. A person who has completed his military service and has reached his 31st year and become an American citizen may safely return to Germany. The treaties between the United States and the German States provide that German subjects who have become citizens of the United States shall be recognized as such upon their return to Germany if they resided in the United States five years. "See Instruction to Austria-Hungary, December 10, 1900, page 7. But a naturalized American of German birth is liable to trial and punishment upon return to Germany for an offense against German law committed before emigration, saving always the limitations of the laws of Germany. If he emigrated after he was enrolled as a recruit in the standing army; if he emigrated while in service or while on leave of absence for a limited time; if, having an unlimited leave or being in the reserve, he emigrated after receiving a call into service or after a public proclamation requiring his appearance, or after war broke out, he is liable to trial and punishment on return. Alsace-Lorraine having become a part of Germany since our naturalization treaties with the other German States were negotiated, American citizens, natives of that province, under existing circumstances, may be subjected to inconvenience and possible detention by the German authorities if they return without having sought and obtained permission to do so from the imperial governor at Strassburg The authorities of Wurttemberg require that the evidence of the American citizenship of a former subject of Wurttemberg which is furnished by a passport shall be supplemented by a duly authenticated certificate showing five years' residence in the United States in order that fulfillment of the treaty condition of five years' residence may appear separately as a fact of record. A former German subject against whom there is an outstanding sentence, or who fears molestation upon return for an offense against German law, may petition the sovereign of his native State for relief, but this Government can not act as intermediary in presenting the petition. Travelers are not required to show passports on entering or leaving Germany, but they are likely to be called upon to establish their identity and citizenship at any time, and especially so if living in boarding houses or renting apartments. They are consequently recommended to provide themselves with passports. They do not usually require to be visaed or indorsed, but the local authorities sometimes demand a German translation. CONSULAR CONVENTION (ARTICLE XII) OF 1871 BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY-PREVIOUS NOTICE TO CONSULS OF SERVICE ON MERCHANT VESSELS OF WRIT OF ATTACHMENT NOT REQUIRED. Mr. von Holleben to Mr. Hay. [Translation.] IMPERIAL GERMAN EMBASSY, Washington, February 9, 1901. MR. SECRETARY OF STATE: On the 19th of October of last year the United States marshal of Philadelphia libeled the Hamburg steamship Assyria, code signal R. L. C. G., of the Hamburg-American Packet Navigation Stock Company, then lying in that port, without advising in advance, conformably to Article XII, paragraph 2, of the consular convention of December 11, 1871, between the United States and the FR 1901-11 German Empire, the imperial consul at Philadelphia of this process serving on board the ship. While bringing the foregoing case to the knowledge of your excellency, I have the honor, with reference to my note of the 31st of March of last year, and your excellency's obliging note No. 417, of the 19th of April, to apply to your kindly intercession to the end that the officials concerned be instructed, in order to avoid the recurrence of similar violations of the provisions of Article XII of the consular convention between the United States of America and Germany, to advise the imperial consular officers in the future before serving processes on board German merchant vessels, and thus afford the said consular officers an opportunity of being present at such serving. Be pleased, etc., HOLLEBEN. Mr. Hay to Mr. von Holleben. No. 561.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 23, 1901. EXCELLENCY: In reply to your note of the 9th instant, relative to the reported violation of the consular convention of December 11, 1871, by the United States marshal at Philadelphia in libeling the Hamburg-American Line steamship Assyria without first having notified the German consul at that city, I have now the honor to inform you that the Attorney-General, to whom the matter was referred, wrote on the 16th instant that he brought the matter to the attention of the marshal and instructed him to avoid in future any similar occurrence in contravention of the terms of the convention referred to above. Accept, etc., JOHN HAY. No. 565.] Mr. Hay to Mr. von Holleben. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, March 1, 1901. EXCELLENCY: On the 23d ultimo I had the honor to inform you, in reply to your note of February 9, that the Attorney-General had brought the matter of the alleged violation of the consular convention of 1871, between the United States and Germany, by the United States marshal at Philadelphia, in libeling the Hamburg-American Line steamship Assyria without first having notified the German consul at that city, to the attention of the marshal and had instructed him to avoid in future any similar occurrence in contravention of the terms of the convention. I am now in receipt of a communication from the Attorney-General, dated February 26, stating that, after further consideration of the language of Article XII of the consular convention referred to, it appears to him that the previous notice to be given to the consular officers of the respective nations relates only to an examination or Not printed. search of merchant vessels by judicial authorities or custom-house officials, and to the taking of the depositions or statements of officers or persons belonging to the crew of a vessel of the respective nations, to be made or used in judicial proceedings. In his judgment, therefore, the service of a writ of attachment upon a vessel is not within the language or intent of said Article XII; and as immediate service of such a writ is often the very essence of the claimant's or creditor's right, as showing due diligence, especially where preferences are concerned, he thinks the reasons are obvious why the service of an ordinary attachment was not intended to be, and was not in fact embraced, in the proceedings which require previous notice under Article XII of the treaty aforesaid. Accept, etc., JOHN HAY. Count von Quadt to Mr. Hay. [Translation.] IMPERIAL GERMAN EMBASSY, MR. SECRETARY OF STATE: By a note, No. 565, of March 1 of this year, relative to the attachment of the steamer Assyria, of Hamburg, your excellency communicated to the imperial ambassador a letter, dated February 26 of this year, from the Attorney-General, in which he declared that upon further examination of Article XII of the consular convention of December 11, 1871, concluded between the United States of America and Germany, he had formed the opinion, at variance with his earlier view, that the attachment of merchant vessels did not come within the class of judicial proceedings previous notice of which is to be given to the consular officer under Article XII of the aforesaid consular convention. The contents of your excellency's note have been brought to the knowledge of the Imperial Government, by which I am now instructed to make the following communication to your excellency. The Imperial Government is unable to concur in the opinion advanced in the Attorney-General's letter of the 26th of February of this year and repeated in your excellency's note of March 1 last. To be sure, the attachment of vessels is not specially mentioned in the aforesaid convention at its proper place, yet, in the opinion of the Imperial Government, it is to be assimilated to the cases enumerated in Article XIII, loco citato, and in like manner requires that the consular officer be called upon. The Imperial Government has always adhered to the opinion that the obligation of notifying the imperial consular officers concerned extends, if not to all official proceedings of American local authorities on board German merchant vessels, at least to all such as affect the interests of the vessel or its service. This view has been upheld by the Imperial Government in several instances, and notably in connection with the conflict between police officers of Hoboken and firemen of the Norddeutschen Lloyd steamer |
