No. 248.
Mr. Davis to Mr. Fish.

No. 164.]

Sir: To-day closes the first year since I took charge of this legation. I have gathered together in a paper, which is inclosed herewith, a concise statement of the various military cases which have occupied our attention during the year. They present an interesting picture of the practical operation of the naturalization treaties.

I have omitted from this list the various cases in which parties have appealed to the legation for protection against their own fears, and confine myself to the cases in which the German authorities have actually set up a claim, either to the military services of a naturalized citizen, or to the recovery from him of a fine for the non-performance of military duty, or both. Including five cases in which representations were originally made to the German government by my predecessors, and which were pending on my arrival, there are thirty-five such cases in all. Eleven of these are either known to have been adjusted without the intervention of the legation, or are supposed to have been so adjusted from the fact that nothing has been heard about them for some months. In three cases I have declined to intervene.

In Starts’s case I declined to do so, because at the time of his emigration he was actually on the army-rolls, and was absent on furlough; he was actually a deserter from the Bavarian army. In a parallel case in the Army of the United States, he would undoubtedly have been held to be a deserter. His offense appeared to me to be a purely military offense, not affected by the treaty. I therefore decided to report it to the Department, and to await instructions.

In Rosenthal’s case I refused, because upon his own statement he procured his naturalization through a fraud. He had been but little over four years in the country when he was naturalized, and he had never served in the Army of the United States.

Steinkauler’s case needs no comment. The Attorney-General has sustained my views of public law, and the Department has approved my action in this case. The remaining twenty-four cases were brought to the notice of the German government by the legation, and have been the subject of more or less correspondence.

Three cases only are still pending. In the cases of Bamberg and Ottinger, the notes were sent to the foreign office only day before yesterday. In Würst’s case, Mr. von Bulow has promised me to ask his colleague of the war office to give a speedy answer. Seven persons have been released from fines imposed upon them for not reporting for military duty, namely: Gewecke, Guth, Kater, Asch, Grubel, Valpel, and Wohlgemuth.

Eight persons have been released from the assumed obligation to perform military service in the German army, namely: Weiss, Weidel, Gerding, Weil, Karl, Trojanowski, Beckmau, and Zantzeu. Two have been released from military service, and have also had their fines remitted, namely, Graffenberger and Arndt.

In one case, that of Neumarche, the German government has refused to return a fine which had already been collected, on the ground that the money was originally paid by the father without protest or without making known the status of the son, and on the further ground that there was not sufficient proof of a five-years’ residence in the United States.

[Page 567]

In three eases it has refused to release parties from service in the army, namely: in the cases of Mumbour, Selbaeh, and Weich.

In Mum hour’s case the refusal is made mainly, if not entirely, upon the ground that he had returned to Germany to reside and without an intent to return to America, and that under the treaty this operated as a renunciation of his naturalization. The proof of this fact was his own statement to that effect, made before the tribunal occupied with the investigation of his case.

In Selbach’s case, it appeared that immediately after obtaining his naturalization he had returned to Germany, and had gone into business in Mannheim with his father 5 that the authorities had notified him shortly before the expiration of a two years’ residence in Germany that should his residence be prolonged beyond the two years, he would be regarded as having forfeited his naturalization; that alter the expiration of the two years he was ordered into military service, but was also again offered the opportunity to return to America, and that he declined the offer, and was then put into service. He remained in the service a short time and then deserted, pending the decision upon his application. It is perhaps not a subject for astonishment that the decision was adverse to him under such circumstances.

In the third case, Weich had been actually summoned to perform military duty in the army of Baden when he emigrated. He was, therefore, on his return, held by the military authorities to be a deserter, and the decision was adopted by the foreign office in its note to the legation. Even before the conclusion of the naturalization treaties, Mr. Cass had instructed this legation that, where a person had before emigration been actually summoned to do military duty and had disregarded the summons, he became subject to the military jurisdiction, notwithstanding subsequent naturalization. This decision, therefore, did not appear open to objection. I apprehend that this brief review of the year’s work will satisfy the Department that the German government is disposed to regard the rights of our naturalized citizens as defined by the treaties.

The Almanach de Gotha of this year gives the number of citizens of the United States residing in Germany, and counted among its “population,” as 10,698. There is good ground for believing that a decided majority of these are naturalized citizens. Twice a week from New York, and once a fortnight from Baltimore, German steamers are sailing for Germany, each time bringing back numbers of native-born Germans who have been naturalized in the United States. And yet, great as is the number of naturalized citizens returning to Germany, only thirty-five cases have come to the knowledge of the legation in which the military authorities have questioned the status of any of them. Three cases only have been decided adversely, and these upon principles or facts which it will be difficult to question.

Europe is now an armed camp in time of peace. The successes of Germany in the wars of 1866 and 1870 have worked and are still working a revolution in the organization of European armies. France will soon have a force which, including reserves and navy, will number, when on a full war-footing, about 1,700,000. The Almanac de Gotha gives the effective force of the Russian army in time of war at 1,520,000 men—a number which I apprehend the existing reforms are decidedly augmenting. Italy has 760,000; England 550,000; Austria about the same; and, in fine, the whole force of the armies of Europe, outside of Germany, is estimated to amount to the immense number of 7,500,000 men. The same authority which I have quoted gives the entire war force [Page 568] of Germany, when on a war-footing, as 1,370,000. The army, when put on a war-footing, includes the army proper; that is to say, the men who serve for three years, commencing with the completion of their twentieth year. (As 1 understand the treaty, persons who are actually enrolled for this period of service, or who have actually been summoned for it, cannot emigrate without committing a military offense.) Next come the reserves, which include all who have served three years, and who are then placed for four years on the list of reserves. These are the first to be called upon in time of war, when the ordinary forces are insufficient. (I understand that the treaty leaves persons on this list free to emigrate, except when the force is called out.) The landwehr and the seawehr constitute the next class, in which all persons are enrolled for a period of five years alter the termination of the reserve period. Lastly there is the landsturm, in which all who have served in the active army, in the reserves, and in the land or seawehr, are again classed until the expiration of their forty second year. The legislation of the last session of the Reichstag increases the efficiency of these forces. With a whole male population under forty-three thus in arms, either actually or constructively, and with jealous neighbors on every side equally armed to the teeth, perhaps one ought not to wonder that when the officers charged with the care of the recruits find a native-born German residing in Germany, and claiming to be exempt from the common duty which all Germans owe to the state, they should scrutinize his claims with some strictness, and should occasionally put the claimant to the proof of them through his legation. Whenever such a challenge has been given, the legation has done its best to protect and maintain the just rights of our naturalized citizens. The German government, in the cases which I now report, appear to have been disposed to construe the last half of the fourth article of the treaty as it was construed by my predecessor, who negotiated it. “I have insisted,” he wrote to the Department on the 29th June, 1874, “that the naturalized American who has the appearance of having obtained naturalization solely to escape military service, should have a right to establish his sincerity by electing to take up his residence in the United States.”

This right was in fact offered both to Selbach and to. Bamberg. Arndt’s case was decided favorably on the ground that he had not resided two years in Germany when arrested. Hersch also reports a notice to him that after a two years’ residence in Germany he would be regarded as having renounced his naturalization. In all these cases the necessity of some reasonable preliminary notice of an intent to put in force the provisions of the treaty appears to have been recognized.

The release from fine, or arrest, or both, which has followed several of the applications of the legation, has been granted, when granted at all, by the use of the royal prerogative of pardon. It has not been regarded as a right which can be asserted and enforced under German law by the injured party. In some cases the inquiries which preceded the exercise of the prerogative have been prolonged beyond the patience of the parties in interest. But on the whole the operation of the treaties during the year has been beneficial and just. Those who have deserved protection have been protected. Those who have not been protected were either seeking to use their acquired citizenship for the perpetration of a fraud, or had been guilty of a military offense against which the treaty is no protection.

I have, &c.,

J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS.
[Page 569]
[Inclosure 1 in No. 161]

Memorandum of military cases at the legation of the United States in Berlin from August 24, 1874, to August 23, 1875, both inclusive.

1.
Jacob Weiss.—This case was begun in Mr. Bancroft’s time. Weiss having been summoned to perform military duty, application was made for his release; and this being granted, he returned his thanks to the legation August 30, 1874.
2.
Leo Graffenberger.—Complained September 27, 1875, to legation. He went to America in 1887, when seventeen years old; resided there more than five years; was naturalized in August, 1873; returned to Germany in August, 1874; found that he had been lined in his absence for non-performance of military duty, and that he was threatened with proceedings to compel him to perform military duty September 30. These facts were stated in a note to the foreign office, and request was made for steps to protect him from further molestation. January 28, 1875, the foreign office informed the legation that the steps had been taken against Graffenberger in ignorance of his acquired citizenship, and that they would be discontinued and that the fine would be remitted.
3.
Robert Weidel.—This case was begun in Mr. Fish’s time. He was released August 27, 1874, and expressed his thanks September 6, 1874.
4.
Robert Gewecke.—Emigrated to the United States in January, 1869, being eighteen years old; was naturalized March 25,1874, returned to Germany in April, 1874, and was fined for unallowed emigration. He stated his case to the legation September. 13, 1874; a note was addressed to the foreign office September 17, 1874, and after several interviews with Mr. von Billow and some correspondence with Mr. Gewecke, the legation was informed, February 9, 1875, that the fine and costs were remitted.
5.
Frederick A. Arndt.—Was born in 1835; in 1855 he presented himself for enrollment, and being a sailor was enrolled in the navy to serve until his 39th year. From 1855 to 1863 he served by permission on several merchant vessels. In 1868 he took up his residence in New York, remained there over rive years, and became naturalized. In 1874 he returned to Germany and entered into business at Danzig. He was condemned to a tine of 20thalers, and to six years’ service in the navy for unauthorized emigration, and for not responding to the call in 1870. He notified the legation September 7, 1874. The legation intervened for him verbally on the same day, and again by note September 11. On the 11th October, 1874, the foreign office informed the legation that the sentence was reversed and the fine remitted.
6.
Herman Guth.—This case was begun by Mr. Fish July 29,1874. He represented to the foreign office that Guth was a naturalized citizen of the United States, and that on returning to Germany he had been illegally arrested, and a fine of 50 thaler had been exacted from him. Again on the 8th of October representations were repeated by the legation in a second note, and on November 27 further verbal representations were made. On the 12th December the foreign office, by note, informed the legation of the remission of the sentence and fine.
7.
Henry Mumbour.— Served three years in the Prussian army. His name was then placed among the reserves, and he obtained a leave of absence for a year. In April, 1869, he went to the United States. While there France declared war against Germany, and the reserves were called out. He heard of the call in Pittsburgh, and decided to remain in America, and to become naturalized. He remained five years in America, became naturalized, and, in 1874, returned to Germany. He was arrested for desertion here, convicted, and sentenced to a year’s imprisonment. He appealed to the legation, and on the 8th of February a note in his behalf was addressed to the foreign office. On the 7th of March the foreign office answered that Mumbour, on examination, had admitted that he was residing in Germany without intent to return to the United States, and therefore that he had, under the treaty, renounced his naturalization, and that he could not be regarded as among the number of those who, as bona-fide American citizens, return here temporarily. They therefore declined to remit his sentence.
8.
Carl F. Selbaeh.—Arrived in the United States in June, 1837; was naturalized June 26, 1872; arrived in Germany in July, 1872; took up his residence at Mannheim, and became assistant to his father in business; was notified in June, 1874, by the German authorities that if he should reside in Germany longer than two years from the date of his return to Mannheim he would be regarded as having renounced his naturalization. He did remain. On the 20th August, 1874, he was taken for military service; was again told by the Germans he would be discharged if he would leave for America; declined, and appealed to the legation. On the 28th September the legation asked for his discharge. On the 17th of November the foreign office replied that the circumstances would seem to indicate that Selbaeh had renounced his naturalization, but as he had deserted from the army the matter appeared to be settled for the present.
9.
Heinrich Kater.—This case was begun in Mr. Bancroft’s time. The legation asked for the return of a fine improperly imposed upon Kater for the non-performance of military duty. On the 17th of November the foreign office informed the legation that the money would be refunded.
10.
Wolff Herz Asch—This case was begun in Mr. Fish’s time. The legation asked for the remission of a penalty and the return of a line of fifty thaler. On the 7th of September the request was repeated verbally. On the 22d of November the foreign office informed the legation that the penalty and costs would be remitted and the fine paid back.
11.
Paul Weissbach.—A naturalized citizen; wrote the legation November 26, 1874, that he had been lined for non-performance of military duty, and feared he would be enrolled as a soldier. The legation replied informing him of his rights, suggesting that he should first apply to the local authorities, and should that prove to be unsuccessful, informing him what facts he should send proof of to the legation. As nothing more was heard from the case it is supposed that it was satisfactorily adjusted.
12.
Franz Homan.—Wrote the legation December 15, 1874, that he was a naturalized American citizen, and that he had reason to fear that he would be called upon to do military service in the German army. On the 13th of February he wrote that he was arrested and was about to be forced into service. His rights, however, were subsequently recognized, and no official action was necessary in his behalf. On the 16th of February he wrote that he had been discharged. His papers were returned to him February 18, 1875.
13.
Ferdinand Böge.—Wrote the legation that he was a naturalized American citizen, and that on his return to Germany he had been fined fifty thaler for non-performance of military duty. The legation replied to his letter, making suggestions and asking for further information. On the 17th of February Mr. Böge wrote asking for the return of his papers. As nothing more has been heard of the case, it is supposed to have been adjusted satisfactorily.
14.
Jacob Weick.—Was summoned in 1869 to do military duty in Baden. Instead of responding, he went to the United States, where he resided five years and became a citizen. During his absence a fine of two hundred thalers was imposed upon his estate. On his return he was arrested for desertion. Pending the examination he escaped into Switzerland, and invoked the intervention of the legation through the consul at Basle. A note was written in his behalf, to which, on the 27th of February, reply was made that he had been adjudged to be a deserter, and the sentence would be enforced should he come again within the jurisdiction.
15.
Edward Grubel.—On the 6th of January, 1875, the legation represented to the foreign office that Grubel had emigrated to America in 1867, at the age of 17; that he had resided there over seven years and became naturalized, and that on his return to Germany, in 1874, he had been made to pay a fine of 150 marks, and committed to prison in delimit of immediate payment. His discharge and remission of the sentence were asked for. On the 15th of May the legation was notified that the fine was remitted and Grubel discharged.
16.
Theodore Vopel.—On the 11th of February, 1875, made affidavit at the legation that he was born in Berlin; that he served in the German army once for a period of three years, and once for a period of three months, in each case receiving his discharge on leaving; that he emigrated to America, resided there five years, and became naturalized; that he returned to Berlin in October, 1874, and that on the 30th January, 1875, he had been summoned to pay a fine of 231.75 marks (including costs) for emigrating without permission. The legation on the same day addressed a note to the foreign office, asserting his exemption as an American citizen. On the 3d of May the foreign office said that proceedings had been stayed, and asked for further papers in the case, which were furnished. On the 14th of July the foreign office notified the legation of the remission of the fine.
17.
Charles H. A. Gerding— On the 19th of February,1875, the legation received a letter from Mr. Gerding, dated the 18th, stating that he emigrated to America in 1867, when 20 years of age; that he remained there five years and two months, and became naturalized; that he had returned to his old home to sell some property which he had inherited, intending to return to America when that should be done; and that he had been arrested, and after examination before an officer had been forced into the Prussian army. On the 19th of February the legation transmitted a copy of this letter to the foreign office with a note asking for redress, and on the 18th and 20th March further notes were addressed to the foreign office in this case. On the 15th of May the foreign office notified the legation that Gerding’s discharge had been ordered.
18.
Philip Humpert— Born in 1840; served one year in the Prussian army; emigrated to America in March, 1868; was naturalized there, and returned in December, 1874. On the 21st of January, he notified legation that he had been fined fifty thaler for nonperformance of military duty. The legation acknowledged the letter, and sent him copies of the treaties, &c., to be shown to the court in his defense. On the 1st of March, acknowledging this, he said that he was a doctor of medicine, and had returned to Germany “to live for a longer or shorter time and practice his profession.” The legation replied that such language implied residence in Germany without intent to return to America, and required him to state, under oath, that he intended to return to America. He has not done so, and it is to be presumed that he could not take that [Page 571] oath, or that he has not been further molested, or that he has concluded to pay the fine.
19.
Simon Weil.—Was born at Bisheim, in Alsace, in 1853; emigrated to the United States in 1868; was naturalized at Mobile, June 19, 1874; returned to Bisheim July 18, 1874, and was ordered to appear on the 12th of March for military duty in the German army. On the 3d March, Weil wrote, invoking the intervention of the legation. The letter was received on the 6th, and on the same day a note was addressed to the foreign office. Weil was shortly afterward discharged, and on the 6th of June the foreign office notified the legation that he was not regarded as a German subject. On the same day Weil wrote the legation, asking if he could not stay in Alsace “for always,” and go into business there.
20.
Arthur Steinkauler.—Father emigrated to America in 1848, and became naturalized there in 1854. Arthur was born at Saint Louis, in 1855. In 1859, the father and his wife and family, including Arthur, returned to Germany, and took up their residence at Wiesbaden, and have since resided there continuously. The father admits that he does not intend to return to America, and says, “according to the treaty of 1868, I, myself may now be considered a Prussian citizen.” On the 2d April, 1875, the father laid these facts before the legation, and said that Arthur had been summoned to do military duty, and asked the intervention of the legation. The legation declined to intervene, unless the son would give a personal statement of his election to be a citizen of the United States, and an assurance of his intention to return to America at some reasonable date to be fixed by him. The father, on his behalf, declined to do so.
21.
Lewis Wohlgemuth.—On the 28th of April, 1875, wrote the legation that he emigrated to the United States when eighteen years of age; remained there seven years; became naturalized; returned the week before the date of his letter, and had been summoned to pay 50 thaler penalty for non-appearance in 1870–71 and 1872. On the 29th of April the legation addressed a note to the foreign office. On the 1st of June the foreign office informed the legation that it appeared on investigation that the fine had already been paid by Wohlgemuth’s father, and that it would be repaid upon Wohlgemuth’s proving his naturalization and residence five years in the United States.
22.
Adolph Karl.—On the 30th of April, 1875, the legation informed the foreign office by note that Adolph Karl, a German naturalized in the United States, who had resided there six years, had, on his return to Germany, been arrested and placed in the imperial army. An immediate inquiry was asked for. On the 4th of May a further communication was made. On the 11th of August the foreign office replied that instructions had been given to restore to Mr. Karl his papers, and to throw no more obstacles in the way of his sojourn in his native place.
23.
Francis Trojanowski.—This case was brought to the attention of the legation by telegraph and letter on the morning of the 4th of May, 1875, and on the same day the legation transmitted the original papers to the foreign office, with a request that the proper steps might be taken in the matter. It appeared that Trojanowski had resided five years in America, and been naturalized there, and on return to Germany had been forced to do military duty. Another note was addressed to the foreign office on the 18th of May, and a third on the 4th of June. On the 15th of June the foreign office informed the legation that Trojanowski had been released, and returned the original papers.
24.
B. Blumenthal.—On the 7th of May, 1875, the legation informed the foreign office that Blumenthal, a naturalized citizen of the United States, had resided more than five years in the United States, and had returned to Germany about two months previously. He had been fined fifty thalers for not reporting himself for military duty in 1873, and had been told that in case of non-payment he would be imprisoned. The legation asked to have the case inquired into, and to have Blumenthal’s rights respected. Nothing having since been heard of it, it is supposed that this fine was not enforced, and that Blumenthal’s rights have been respected.
25.
Martin Beckmann.—Emigrated to America when he was nineteen years old; resided there six years, was naturalized, became a land-owner in Nebraska, returned to visit his father at Kiel, and was forced into the German army. On the 12th of May, 1875, the legation was informed of some of these facts through the consulate-general at Berlin. Further information was desired, which was given, and on the 18th of May a note was addressed to the foreign office asking for Beckmann’s discharge. On the 2d of July the legation was officially informed of his release.
26.
Morris A. Neumarch.—Was a native Prussian, who resided more than five years in the United States, and was naturalized there. On his return to Germany he found that a fine of 150 marks for non-performance of military duty had been imposed upon him during his absence, and had been paid by his father. “He informed the legation of these facts on the 18th May, 1875, and on the same day proper representations were made to the foreign office by note. On the 21st of June the foreign office declined to return the fine, on the ground that when the father paid the fine he had not protested or given notice of the acquired citizenship of the son, and on the further ground that the five years’ residence in America had not been satisfactorily proved.
27.
Moses Baum.—A native of Oldenberg, emigrated to America in 1886, became naturalized in 1872, and returned to Germany in 1875, on a visit. On the 27th of May, 1875, he informed the legation that he had been fined 50 thalers for not presenting himself for military duty, while in the United States; that he had been summoned to do military duty, and that he had escaped into Belgium in order to avoid process. The legation answered that, should he return, it would be the duty of the legation, if the facts stated were true, to protect him as far as possible. He returned, and upon a restatement of the case by his counsel, received on the 8th of June, he was informed on that day by letter that if he would transmit to the legation the evidence of his citizenship the legation would lay the matter at once before the foreign office; since then nothing has been heard from him, from which it is presumed that the case has been adjusted.
28.
Carl Johann Erwin Behrens.—A native of Brunswick, naturalized in New York July 14, 1873, took out a passport from the Department of State August 6, 1873, returned to Brunswick September, 1873; took charge of his father’s business there, but declared that he intended to return to America. He was summoned to do military duty, and he asked the intervention of the legation, through the consul at Brunswick, on the 28th of May, 1875. The legation answered, the same day, that it would intervene on receiving the proper proof of citizenship, and the oath of an intent to return to America. Nothing more heard of the case.:
29.
Charles S. Rosenthal.—Born in Prussia, March 13, 1847; went to the United States in July, 1865; was naturalized in the United States district court for the district of Massachusetts, November 16, 1869. He invoked the intervention of the legation to relieve him from a fine of fifty thalers for non-performance of military duty. This application was declined, upon the ground that his naturalization was improperly obtained, he not having resided five years in the United States, nor served in the Army of the United States.
30.
David Wurst.—A native of Frankfort; resided in the United States six years; naturalized October 30, 1872, then returned to Germany; resided here more than two years; was then summoned to do military duty. He claimed his rights as a citizen of the United States, and was told it was too late. He expressed a desire to return to America, but permission was refused him. He then invoked the intervention of the legation through the consul-general at Frankfort. The legation addressed the foreign office July 12, 1875, asking that steps might be promptly taken for Wurst’s release. No answer has, as yet, been received. On the 21st instant a verbal request was made by Mr. Davis for an answer.
31.
Mathias Bamberg.—Emigrated to America in 1887, remained there six years, was naturalized, and returned to Germany in July, 1873. In May, 1875, he was told by the German authorities that should he remain in Germany over two years he would be regarded as a Prussian, and be made to do military duty. He said that he must remain, in order to look after an inheritance, and did remain. On the 9th of July he was enrolled in the Prussian service. On the 12th of July the legation received a letter setting forth these facts, and asking intervention, to enable him to remain in Germany until the end of November, in order to finish the business about his inheritance. The legation replied, asking the exact date of his return to Germany in 1873, the date in May on which his sojourn was called in question, the manner in which it was done, the name of the officer who notified him to leave, and he was told that these questions were asked in his own interests, and to make for himself the best case he could. An answer was received to these questions, and a note was addressed to the foreign office on his behalf on the 21st instant. There has not yet been time for an investigation and reply.
32.
C. H. F.Jantzen.—A native of Mecklenburg; emigrated to the United States in 1888; resided there until April 27, 1875; was naturalized April 24, 1875; left for Germany in the Schiller, and in the shipwreck of that vessel lost his passport and his citizen-paper. He returned to his native place, and on the 8th July was summoned to do military duty. He made a statement of these facts to the legation in a letter dated July 13, 1875. On the 15th, the legation asked of the foreign office suspension of proceedings, to enable him to procure from America proof of his citizenship. On the 11th of August, the foreign office notified the legation that Jantzen had satisfactorily proved his citizenship, and that he was free.
33.
Charles Ottinger.—On the 29th July, 1875,’informed the legation that he had emigrated to America, resided five years in the United States, and became naturalized. During his residence there a fine had been imposed upon him, which had been paid under protest. To a letter of the legation making further inquiries, he replied that, before going to America, he had been summoned to perform military duty, had reported himself, had been examined, his physical condition unfavorably reported on, and his case had been adjourned for a year, and he had been ordered to report the following year. Instead of complying with the order, he went to America. A note in his behalf was addressed to the foreign office August 21; 1875. There has not yet been time for investigation of the case by the German government.
34.
Hilar Fresch.—Communications about this case were received on the 30th of July, [Page 573] and the 6th, 16th, and 17th of August, 1875, so illegibly-written as to make it difficult to understand them. It appeared, however, that Mr. Fresch was a naturalized citizen, who had returned to Germany, and resided in Wurtemberg nearly two years, and had been notified that, should he continue to reside there more than two years, it would be considered as a renunciation of his naturalization. The legation advised him that, after the expiration of the two years, it would be much more difficult to protect him, and counseled him to go to America.
35.
Anton Stack.—Served in the Bavarian army two years and four months; left on furlough and emigrated to America. He says that he was naturalized there, and returned here in 1875. He has been arrested for desertion. The facts were communicated to the legation on the 16th August. The legation answered that it could not intervene without instructions from the Department of State, as Stach was actually in the army when he emigrated.