Page images
PDF
EPUB

Elbe in 1890, and has been conceded in Assistant Secretary William F. Wharton's note of June 19, 1891.

a

Among the official proceedings of American authorities affecting the interests of the vessel or its service, an attachment is indeed to be placed in the first rank, and it has been thus expressly conceded by the Government of the United States itself in the cases of attachment of the vessels Schleswig, Rhaetia, Magdalene, and R. C. Rickmers. I venture, in this respect, to refer to the note of Secretary of State John Sherman, of November 9, 1897, No. 395; the notes of Secretary of State William R. Day, of June 2, 1898, No. 60, and of the 23d of August of the same year, No. 99; and the note of Assistant Secretary of State David J. Hill, of the 19th of April of last year, No. 417.

a

[ocr errors]

The Imperial Government does indeed grant that an attachment must in most cases be executed without delay. But this does not come in support of the opinion advanced by the Attorney-General, because the obligation to call upon the assistance of the consuls in the proceedings under consideration has never been understood otherwise than that a notification of any official proceeding whatever was to take place before execution only when its object was not to be defeated by reason of the loss of time thereby involved, but that a notification given immediately after entering upon its execution would be deemed sufficient. Vessels of a foreign nation in Germany enjoy a similar right.

Under the circumstances, the Imperial Government thinks it may express its expectation that the United States Government will not depart from the interpretation of article 12 of the consular convention as accepted in the above-mentioned cases, and that the attachment of a vessel will, as heretofore, be counted among the official proceedings therein specified, which require a previous notification.

While respectfully asking that your excellency will take the views of the Imperial Government as herein presented into favorable consideration and favor me with a reply at your convenience, I avail myself of this opportunity to renew, etc.

A. QUADT.

Mr. Hay to Mr. von Holleben.

No. 707.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
January 6, 1902.

EXCELLENCY: Referring to Count von Quadt's note of November 8 last, relative to the construction of Article XII of the consular convention of December 11, 1871, I have the honor to inclose a copy of a letter from the Attorney-General, stating why he is constrained to adhere to the decision of his predecessor, communicated to you March 1, 1901, that service of an attachment on a vessel was not intended to be and was not embraced in the proceedings which require previous notice to consular officers. JOHN HAY.

Accept, etc.,

Not printed.

[Inclosure.]

Mr. Knox to Mr. Hay.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
December 28, 1901.

SIR: I have the honor to state that I have given careful consideration to your letter of November 19 and to the note from the German embassy which you inclose, with its accompanying papers, relative to the construction of Article XII of the convention of 1871 between the United States and Germany. The language of that article is that "the judicial authorities and custom-house officials shall in no case proceed to the examination or search of merchant vessels without having given previous notice to the consular officers of the nation to which the said vessels belong, in order to enable the said consular officers to be present." The concluding paragraph of the article provides for giving such notice when statements by officers or members of a crew are to be made in court or before a magistrate, in order to prevent error or false interpretation which might impede the correct administration of justice.

The view of Mr. Griggs (letter of February 26, 1901), to which the embassy's note refers, was that the service of a writ of attachment upon a vessel is not within the language or the intent of this article of the treaty, especially since immediate service of such writ is often the very essence of the right of a claimant or creditor. The note of the German embassy, while claiming that the service of attachments is covered by the language of Article XII, concedes generally that when the object of the proceedings can otherwise not be attained, or be attained but partially, the obligation to give previous notice is so far qualified, and that the proximity of a vessel's departure justifies the failure to notify before the attachment is effected, provided due notice is subsequently given.

On review of the entire subject, I concur in the conclusion announced in my predecessor's letter of February 26, 1901, viz, "that 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.'

[ocr errors]

Very respectfully,

P. C. KNOX, Attorney-General.

EXPULSION OF MORMON MISSIONARIES FROM GERMANY.

Mr. White to Mr. Hay.

No. 1535.]

EMBASSY OF THE UNITED STATES,
Berlin, February 14, 1901.

SIR: I have the honor to inform you that in December last, under general instructions from the Department, intervention was made in behalf of Lewis T. Cannon and Jacob Müller, American citizens, who had been residing in Cologne, “in the capacity of missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (otherwise known as the Mormon Church)," who had been found "lästig" (troublesome, objectionable) by the local authorities "because of the preaching and practice" of their religion, and who had consequently been expelled from Prussia. In the case of Mr. Müller, who had no present intention to return to Germany, the request was made that the order for his expulsion might be recalled, so that he might not be liable to arrest and punishment in case he ever found it desirable to make another visit. Mr. Müller is a naturalized American citizen of Wurttemberg origin, and is about 60 years old. Mr. Cannon, however, who is a native American citizen, wished to be allowed to return to Prussia as a student in case he should not be permitted to do so as a missionary.

To-day the embassy is in receipt of a note from the imperial foreign office in which it is stated that the Royal Prussian Government does

not consider it practicable ("angängig") under the circumstances either to recall the orders of expulsion or to permit Cannon to stay in Prussia as a student. This information has at once been communicated to Mr. Cannon, who was at Zurich, Switzerland, when last heard from, and he has been asked to communicate it to Mr. Müller, whose address is not known to the embassy.

[blocks in formation]

Convey through appropriate channel fitting expression of the President's sympathy for the Emperor's painful accident and his sincere congratulations upon His Majesty's escape from more serious injury.

HAY.

Mr. White to Mr. Hay.

No. 1565.]

EMBASSY OF THE UNITED STATES,
Berlin, March 9, 1901.

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt this morning of your telegraphic instructions, and to inform you that I have at once acted in accordance with the same and have communicated with Baron Richthofen, the imperial secretary of state for foreign affairs.

I am, etc.,

Mr. Jackson to Mr. Hay.

ANDREW D. WHITE.

No. 1574.]

EMBASSY OF THE UNITED STATES,
Berlin, March 16, 1901.

SIR: Referring to the ambassador's dispatch No. 1565, of the 9th instant, I have the honor to report that I am to-day in receipt of a note from the imperial foreign office in which I am informed that the German ambassador in Washington has been instructed to convey to our Government an expression of the sincere gratitude of the Imperial Government for the evidence of friendly sympathy on the occasion of the assault on the German Emperor at Bremen on March 6, 1901.

I have, etc.,

a Printed ante.

JOHN B. JACKSON.

Mr. von Holleben to Mr. Hay.

[Translation.]

IMPERIAL GERMAN EMBASSY,
Washington, March 29, 1901.

MR. SECRETARY OF STATE: The ambassador of the United States at Berlin has expressed to the Imperial Government the sympathy and congratulations of your excellency's Government on the occasion of the accident which recently befell His Majesty, the Emperor and King, at Bremen.

By order of the chancellor of the Empire, I have the honor to convey to your excellency the most sincere thanks of the Imperial Government for this friendly token of sympathy.

Be pleased to accept, etc.,

HOLLEBEN.

MILITARY-SERVICE CASES OF LADISLAUS GOLUS, XAVER SYLVESTER BALZ, MICHAEL, NICHOLAS, AND MATHIAS GENT, HENRY KAUFFMANN, AND ALFRED NACHTIGALL.

No. 1589.]

Mr. Jackson to Mr. Hay.

EMBASSY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Berlin, March 30, 1901.

SIR: Referring to the embassy's dispatch No. 1492," of December 31, 1900, I have the honor to append hereto a memorandum report of certain military cases, particularly mentioned below, which have been brought to a satisfactory conclusion during the current quarter, and which have not been referred to heretofore in the embassy s correspondence with the Department.

I have, etc.,

JOHN B. JACKSON.

[Inclosure.]

1. Ladislaus Golus brought his case to the attention of the embassy in May, 1900, and after certain correspondence the embassy intervened in his behalf (F. O., No. 704), on the 17th of that month.

Golus was born at Gollub in 1873, and emigrated in 1890 to the United States, where he duly became naturalized as a citizen in New York, in April, 1900. He returned on a visit to Gollub soon thereafter, and on May 12 he had been arrested and kept in prison, in spite of his protest as an American citizen, until he had paid a fine on account of his nonperformance of military service.

The embassy again invited attention to this case on June 21, 1900 (F. O., No. 735), September 10 and 17 (F. O., Nos. 804 and 810), and December 20 (F. O., No. 849). Under date of January 14, 1901, Golus having in the meantime returned to the United States, the foreign office notified the embassy that the money in question would be refunded to his father at Gollub.

2. Xaver Sylvester Balz informed the embassy in December, 1900, that he wished to visit his former home in Alsace, had made the usual formal request, and hoped that the embassy would support the same. He had been born at Buchsweiler in 1863, and when 18 years old had emigrated to the United States, where he had duly become naturalized as a citizen.

Printed Foreign Relations, 1900, p. 519.

On January 5, 1901 (F. O., No. 862), and again on the 10th of the same month, Balz, having informed the embassy in the meantime that the minister for AlsaceLorraine at Strassburg had refused his request, owing to the fact that a warrant had been issued for his arrest on account of his evasion of military duty, the embassy communicated with the foreign office in regard to the case, and under date of January 24 a reply was received to the effect that permission had been granted Balz to visit Buchsweiler for six weeks at some time before the 1st of next June.

3. The brothers Michael, Nicholas, and Mathias Gent brought their case to the attention of the embassy in April, 1900, and, after correspondence, intervention was made in their behalf (F. O., No. 715), on May 30. They were born at Büschdorf in 1866, 1870, and 1874, respectively, had emigrated to the United States, and had duly become naturalized as citizens at Creston, Iowa, where all three now reside. Recently their representative at their former home had been compelled to pay fines amounting in all to 624.21 marks on account of their not having reported for military

service.

Attention was again called to this case in June, September, and December, 1900, and under date of January 29, 1901, the foreign office notified the embassy that the fines had been remitted and the money paid would be refunded.

4. Henry Kauffmann, writing from his home in the United States, informed the embassy that he desired to be permitted to make a visit to his former home in Alsace, and had already been in correspondence with the imperial ministry at Strassburg in the matter. On January 29, 1901, the embassy addressed a note (F. O., No. 882) to the imperial foreign office in support of Kauffmann's request, and under date of February 21 it was informed that permission had been granted him to visit Strassburg for three weeks.

5. Alfred Nachtigall's case was brought to the attention of the embassy on January 22, 1901, and intervention was at once (F. O., No. 880) made in his behalf. Nachtigall had emigrated to the United States from Germany without having performed military service, and had duly become naturalized as a citizen in 1890, at Grand Rapids, Mich., at which place he continued to reside. A previous effort, made by his father, to obtain his release from German allegiance was said to have been unsuccessful. Under date of March 23, the embassy was notified by the foreign office that Nachtigall had been recognized as an American citizen and his name taken from the German military lists.

MILITARY-SERVICE

CASES OF SIGMUND MEYERS (MAYER), DIEDRICH EBKEN, GUSTAV A. SEITZ, LOUIS WIESS, (JOHN) JACOB HÄBERLE, ROBERT H. JUST, SIEGMUND STERN, AND MAX KUECHLIN.

No. 1660.]

Mr. White to Mr. Hay.

EMBASSY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
BERLIN, July 1, 1901.

SIR: Referring to Mr. Jackson's dispatch No. 1589, of March 30, 1901, I have the honor to append hereto a memorandum report of certain military cases, particularly mentioned below, which have been brought to a conclusion during the past quarter, and which have not heretofore been referred to in the embassy's correspondence with the Department.

I am, etc.,

ANDREW D. White.

[Inclosure.]

1. Sigmund Meyers (Mayer) emigrated from Germany to the United States about nine years ago, and duly became naturalized as a citizen in Philadelphia, on May 29, 1899. On account of his not having appeared for military service, his father (it was claimed), in Bavaria, had been ordered to pay a fine. The case was brought to the attention of the embassy by Messrs. Gutman Klein & Son, of Fhiladelphia, and under date of February 12, 1901, intervention (F. O., No. 894) was made in Meyers's

« PreviousContinue »