Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.
[Translation.]
Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys to Mr. Seward
Sir: I hasten to answer the letter relating
to François Pierre, which you did me the honor to write me on the
24th of this month.
From the information furnished me by the minister of war, it appears
that the policemen who arrested François Pierre, not being empowered
to decide the question whether or not he was subject to military
service, were obliged to take him before the general commanding the
division of Metz—accidents of the journey, such as damage to his
papers by bad weather, being unavoidable, the department is not
responsible for them.
The treatment of the plaintiff in the prisons of Bitche,
Sarreguemines, and Metz, of which he complains, must have been
similar to that of the other convicts, and he must have wanted
something more than the ordinary prison fare, which he did not get;
and this is the cause of his complaint.
But these details, as you must acknowledge, are of small import; the
chief point which you specify, and I agree to, is to determine what
value is put upon an American passport in France.
In regard to this, you state, that François Pierre, proved to be an
American citizen by his papers, was arrested and treated as a
criminal, without the form of a proper trial.
[Page 302]
If that were so, I would be the first to say with you, that such a
proceeding is in consistent with international customs; but the case
is somewhat complicated.
The fact is, the person named François, a Frenchman by birth, was
included in the quota for 1849, and as he did not respond to the
summons, he has been considered as an insubordinate since the year
1850. Now, when François came back to France, he was still in
insubordination, and as guilty of that offence, he was arrested.
True, he was the bearer of an American passport; and no official in
France will think of disputing the respect due to it. If François
had been an American by birth, or a citizen of the United States,
under other circumstances, his passport would certainly have
protected him from prosecution for the offence in question; but when
a person returns to his native country with foreign naturalization
papers, it is not just to lay aside his nativity and admit his new
nationality as protecting him, by a retroactive effect, contrary to
every principle of law, against former acts, and particularly
against offences of which he was guilty, a Frenchman, as in the
present case. His presence in his native country obliges him to
explain his case by the laws of the land; and as long as he has not
done that, he is considered to have preserved his primitive
citizenship.
Now, who is the competent judge of the question of nationality? The
government of the Emperor has more than once had occasion to discuss
that point with the United States legation. I will refer in
particular to the correspondence of 1860, with Mr. Faulkner, your
predecessor, in regard to Zeiter’s case. In France the departments
have no right to judge of cases of military recruiting; that
jurisdiction being reserved by law to courts of justice. This, so
far from offending foreign countries, is the best security we could
offer against arbitrary decisions.;
Such is the justice of our statutes, and it leaves no cause of action
to the departments.
Fortunately, difficulties of this kind do not often occur; and I will
promise to use all the moderation compatible with the meaning of the
law in the settlement of these questions.
Accept the assurances of the high consideration with which I have the
honor to be, sir, your very humble and most obedient servant,
Monsieur Bigelow, Minister of the United States, at Paris.
