No. 248.
Mr. Davis
to Mr. Fish.
Legation of
the United States,
Berlin, August 23, 1875.
(Received September 15.)
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 Including five cases in which representations were originally made to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.,
[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.