« PreviousContinue »
188 ; Mr. Trescot, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Salsbacher, Aug. 24, 1860, 53 id. 47; Mr. F. W. Seward, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Roasen, April 6, 1861, 53 id. 542.)
“I have the honor herewith to transmit a copy of a despatch of the 22d ultimo, from the conşul-general of the United States at Havana to this Department, on the subject of a recent order issued by the governor of Sagua la Grande, summoning a naturalized citizen of the United States, temporarily residing at that place, to surrender himself at the barracks for military duty. It appears that Mr. Leaño, the individual alluded to, who is a native of Spain, answered the summons of the governor and exhibited to him his certificate of naturalization, with other proofs of his American citizenship, notwithstanding which, however, he was ordered either to go to the barracks for the performance of the military service exacted of him, or give bond in the penalty of $318 as indemnity for the nonperformance of such service. To escape being sent to prison, he executed the bond under protest.
“ You are requested to call the attention of the Government of Her Catholic Majesty without delay to this case, as one in which much interest is felt by the President, involving as it does the claim of a foreign government to interfere with the personal security and liberty of citizens of the United States whose interests may require them to return temporarily to the respective countries of which they were once inhabitants. This claim, which, as you are aware, is denied by the Government of the United States, has in all recent casės been yielded without hesitation upon representation of the views of this Government respecting it. These views are given at length in a despatch of the 8th of July last, addressed to Mr. Wright, at Berlin, a printed copy of which you will receive by the next mail.
“ Fortunately such cases as the one in question are not likely to be of frequent occurrence, and the President indulges the confident hope that the Government of Her Catholic Majesty will at once direct its authorities in Cuba to put a stop to all future proceedings against Mr. Leaño, and at the same time take such measures as may prevent the recurrence of similar proceedings, so likely to interrupt the friendly relations of the two countries."
Mr. Cass, Sec. of State, to Mr. Preston, min. to Spain, March 1, 1860,
MS. Inst. Spain, XV. 235.
“Our Government is bound to protect the rights of our naturalized citizens everywhere to the same extent as though they had drawn iheir first breath in this country. We can recognize no distinction betweeen our native and naturalized citizens."
President Buchanan, amual messige, Dec. 3, 1860, Richardson's Mes.
sages, V. 641.
(5) COURSE DURING CIVIL WAR.
Recurring to your despatch No. 8, which has already been acknowledged, I have now the honor to give you the President's views in regard to the proceedings in Prussia, by which natives of Prussia who have voluntarily exchanged allegiance from that Government for the rights and privileges of citizens of the United States, and have been duly naturalized as such, are nevertheless arrested and held liable to perform military service on occasions of their transient visits to their native country. The question involved in these proceedings is an old one, and was a subject of elaborate discussion between the two countries before the occurrence of our late civil war. ('onsiderations of ease and policy prevailed with this Department to allow the subject to rest during the continuance of the war. We became even less anxious upon the subject when it was seen that worthless naturalized citizens fled before the requirement of military service by their adopted Government here, and not only took refuge from such service in their native land, but impertinently demanded that the United States should interpose to procure their efemption from military service exacted there. Those circumstances, however, have passed away, and the question presents itself in its original form. The United States have accepted and established a Government upon the principle of the rights of men who have committed no crime to choose the state in which they will live, and to incorporate themselves as members of that state, and to enjoy henceforth its privileges and benefits, among which is included protection. This principle is recommended by sentiments of humanity and abstract justice. It is a principle which we cannot waive. It is not believed that the military service which can be procured by any foreign state in denial of this principle can be important or even useful to that state. The President desires that you will present the subject to the serious consideration of Count Bismarck. In doing so, you will assure the minister for foreign affairs that we are animated by sentiments of sincere friendship and good will to Prussia, and that therefore we shall be ready to receive and consider with candor any opinions upon the subject that the Prussian Government may think proper to communicate.
“ You will also assure Count Bismarck that any suggestions that he may think proper to make relative to the extradition laws of the two countries will receive just and friendly attention.”
Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Wright, min. to Prussia, Dec. 2, 1865,
Dip. (or. 1865, III. 68; MS. Inst. Prussia, XIV. 422.
“ The question with regard to the right of a foreign government to claim
and enforce military service from such of its subjects as may voluntarily placed themselves within its jurisdiction after having become citizens of the United States is still a matter of controversy." (Mr. F. W. Seward, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Haurer, March 20, 1861,
53 MS. Dom. Let. 491.) The “ general views, however,
of the Executive Government in regard to the impressment of naturalized citizens into the military service of foreign countries, are expressed in the instruction of my predecessor of the 8th of July, 1859, to Mr. Wright, the United States minister at Berlin, a copy of which is enclosed.” (Mr. Seward, Sec.
of State, to Mr. Kind, March 18, 1863, 60 MS. Dom. Let. 27.) See Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Judd, min. to Prussia, No. 27, April
3, 1862, MS. Inst. Prussia, XIV. 318. “In view of the present condition of the Union, it is deemed inexpedient
to instruct you to institute proceedings for obtaining the exemption of William Lade, Augustus Henry Jaenschke, and Alexander Kloss from the claims of the Prussian Government for military service. Citizens of the United States, in the present emergency, ought rather to be at home, upholding the Government against domestic insurrection, than to be adding to its embarrassments by invoking the exercise of its authority for their special relief in foreign countries." (Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Judd, min. to Prussia, No. 54,
June 6, 1863, MS. Inst. Prussia, XIV. 369.) In an instruction to Mr. Motley at Vienna, April 21, 1863, Mr. Seward,
referring to the case of Mr. Judkiewicz, a native of Austria who came to the United States at the age of 13, and ten years later, having become a naturalized citizen, returned to Austria for permanent or temporary residence," said: The claim of exemption from military service in such cases has been constantly insisted upon by the United States, and as constantly resisted by the European states concerned. . . The United States found it necessary to resort to conscription for its own military service. The naturalized citizens generally were neither disloyal nor patriotic, but many of them sought escape from military duty here, under the influence of the same motives which had induced them to seek immunity from similar service in their native country, by acquiring the privileges of American citizenship. Thus the Government found itself committed, in an extreme conjunction of public affairs, to perplexing controversies with foreign powers, in resisting, on the one hand, their claims for the exemption from our military service of persons who appealed to their protection, and, on the other, the enforcing of claims for the exemption of a like class from military service in foreign countries, on the ground of their having acquired the rights of citizenship in the United States. The President has decided that it is not expedient to urge questions of the latter sort in the present crisis beyond the limits of appeal to the good will and friendly disposition of foreign powers. We ought to discourage rather than encourage, so far as possible, the return of naturalized foreigners, as well as the emigration of our own citizens to Europe." (Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Motley, min. to Austria, April 21,
1863, MS. Inst. Austria, I. 186.) The subject of "the right of a foreign government to require military
service from such of its subjects as may have become naturalized citi.
zens of the United States, is still in controversy, and pending its set-
Dom. Let. 141.)
March 28, 1866, 72 MS. Dom. Let. 376; to Mr. Markwell, March 30,
(6) ACT OF 1868.
Early in 1866 the United States consul at Dublin transmitted to the Department of State a correspondence in relation to a number of naturalized citizens of the United States who had been arrested and thrown into prison. It appeared by the correspondence that the lord lieutenant of Ireland had declined to recognize the interposition of the consul with respect to persons who were originally British subjects, on the ground that they must still be regarded as such. Mr. Seward, referring to this statement, observed that there was a conflict between the laws of Great Britain and those of the United States with regard to the effect of naturalization, Great Britain declining to concede that a native British subject could divest himself of his allegiance by renouncing it, while the United States had maintained that the process of naturalization completely absolved the person from his former allegiance, and invested him“ with the right equally with native-born citizens to such protection and care of the Government of the United States as it can, in conformity with treaties and the law of nations, extend over him, wherever he may sojourn, whether in the land of his nativity or in any other foreign country.” The conflict, when once practically raised, could, said Mr. Seward, find a friendly adjustment only by concession, in the form of a treaty or of mutual legislation, or of some form of arbitrament. The answer of the lord lieutenant, if it should be adopted by Her Majesty's Government, “must bring the question up for immediate solution.” Among the naturalized citizens of the United States, in regard to whom the discrimination had been made, were some who had borne arms in defence of the United States during the Civil War. Her Majesty's Government could conceive “how impossible it would be for the Government of the United States to agree to a denial or abridgement of their right to extend to them the same natural protection and care which the United States extend to native-born citizens of the United States in similar cases."
Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Adams, min. to England, March 22,
1866, Dip. Cor. 1866, I. 86.
The foregoing cases grew out of the Fenian movement. In consequence of the arrest of naturalized American citizens on charges connected with this movement, the question of expatriation assumed an acute form. Among the numerous cases arising at that time, the most notable one, historically, is that of Warren and Costello, two naturalized American citizens who were tried and sentenced in Dublin, in 1867, for treason-felony, on account of participation in the Jacmel expedition. It was shown that they had come over to Ireland in that vessel and had cruised along the coast for the purpose of effecting a landing of men and arms, in order to raise an insurrection. At their trial they claimed, as American citizens, a jury de medietate lingure, which was then allowed by the English law to aliens. The demand was refused on the ground of their original British allegiance. This incident, together with others, produced an excitement that, as Mr. Seward stated, extended “throughout the whole country, from Portland to San Francisco and from St. Paul to Pensacola." The subject was discussed in Congress, and exhaustive reports were made both in the Senate and in the House of Representatives on the subject of expatriation. The cause of the advocates of the right of voluntary expatriation was greatly strengthened by the conclusion by Mr. Bancroft, February 22, 1868, of the convention with the North German Union, by which the naturalization of German subjects in the United States, after an uninterrupted residence of five years, was recognized. By an act of July 27, 1868, Congress declared the right of expatriation ” to be “ an inherent right of all people," and pronounced "any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this Government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation " to be “inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this Government.” It was further declared that naturalized citizens of the United States should, while abroad, be entitled to receive from the United States “the same protection of persons and property that is accorded to native-born citizens in like situations and circumstances.” It was, moreover, declared that, whenever it should be made known to the President that any citizen of the United States had been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, it should be the President's duty forth with to demand of such government the reasons for the imprisonment, and, if it appeared to be wrongful and in violation of the rights of American citizenship, forth with to demand the release of such citizen, and, if the release was unreasonably delayed or refused, to use such means not amounting to acts of war as might be necessary and proper to obtain such release, and then, as soon as practicable, to communicate all the facts and proceedings to Congress.