(15) It watches over the administration of all officials and employés of the Federal Government. (16) It renders account of its administration to the Federal Assembly at each regular session; presents a report to the same on the condition of the Confederation, as well in regard to domestic as foreign affairs, and recommends to its attention those measures which it deems useful to the increase of the common prosperity. It renders also special reports on demand of the Federal Assembly or one of its branches. (17) It has authority to call in experts on special subjects. These provisions are all contained in a chapter of the constitution styled "Bundersrath," or Federal Council. The same sure tenure of service shown by my dispatch No. 169 to exist in the Federal Assembly prevails in the Federal Council. Indeed, the changes, almost without exception, are entirely voluntary. In some remarks recently made by the President in a public meeting the Swiss view of public business and officials is well expressed. He said: Facts and not persons are what interest us. If you were to take ten Swiss, every one of them would know whether the country was well governed or not. But I venture to say that nine of them would not be able to tell the name of the President, and the tenth, who might think that he knew it, would be mistaken. The Federal Council in its present form came into existence with the constitution of 1848, the first election of its members taking place in November of that year. The election, therefore, occurring on the 13th instant was the fourteenth triennial renewal of the council, and covering a period of thirty-nine years. During this time twenty-seven names complete the list of persons who have been elected members. Of these seven died during the term of service, eleven voluntarily retired, leaving only two who have been defeated for re-election, one on a personal, the other on political grounds. It should be remarked that this most remarkable conservatism in retaining these high officials in their places and the greatest power and influence under the Government has survived angry and fundamental questions of public policy, such as the revisions of the constitution in 1871 and 1874, in reference to which the members of the council were divided, and actively participated in the discussions of the various issues, in many instances antagonizing the views of the majority in the assembly to which they owed their election, and who were expected to continue them in office. The election on the 13th instant was practically unanimous, there being no organized opposition, and only a few scattering votes cast for other names. The seven men elected, or rather re elected, are Dr. Karl Schenk, of Berue, in service since 1863; Emil Welti, of Aargau, since 1866; B. Hammer, of Solothurn, since 1875; N. Droz, of Neuenberg, since 1875; W. Hertenstein, of Zurich, since 1879; L. Ruchonnet, of Waadt, since 1881; A. Doucher, of Thurgau, since 1883. All of these gentlemen have served their turn as President except Mr. Hertenstein, Messrs. Schenk and Welti having served in that capacity each five times. Organized thus on the departmental system, with a very close scrutiny by the whole people, the chiefs of the various departments manifest great activity, with much laborious detail work, in their respective dominions. In no country are the affairs of public interest considered in a more earnest, critical, and patriotic spirit than they are by the Federal Council of Switzerland. As a rule they are men of a high order of natural ability, well educated, and thoroughly disciplined in the public service. Of course it is one thing to provide the machinery of government for a small state, and quite another to meet the requirements of many millions of people. Switzerland, seeking no alliances, conquests, nor colonies, from topographical peculiarities, the interests of jealous neighbors, and the traditional habits of a peasant population, well trained to provincial self-government, assured in the permanence of a democratic federation, has worked out an eminently wise and simple form of government. There is an orderly and systematic arrangement of the governing bodies and areas-communes grouped into districts, districts into cantons, cantons into the Confederation; the small size, great independence, and many functions of these small groups seem to produce good results in contentment, order, economical administration, and a clean and efficient public service, with light taxation. I am, etc., No. 1030. BOYD WINCHESTER. No. 113.] Mr. Bayard to Mr. Winchester. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, December 19, 1887. SIR: It appears by a dispatch from our consul at Zurich, No. 137, of the 24th ultimo, that the anarchists of that city, having threatened the consulate with violence in consequence of the execution of the Chicago anarchists, the Swiss federal authorities, at your request, took the consulate at Zurich under police protection. I will thank you to express to the Swiss Government the Department's high appreciation of its prompt action in taking measures to protect the archives and property of the American consulate and the person of the consul from the consequences of apprehended popular disturbances. I am, etc., T. F. BAYARD. No. 178.] No. 1031. Mr. Winchester to Mr. Bayard. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Berne, December 22, 1887. (Received January 3, 1888.) SIR: In March, 1873, John Weiss, a native of Baden, Germany, and Eliza Küngli, a native of the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland, were married in New York City. In October, 1873, John Weiss, the husband, was made a citizen of the United States by naturalization. In 1878 said Weiss and his wife came to Europe, and in 1880 Weiss returned to the United States alone, abandoning his wife, who has continued to remain abroad, and is now a pauper and mentally diseased at Wald, in the Canton of Zurich. She has no information of the whereabouts of her husband, or whether he is alive. There is no possibility of Mrs. Weiss returning to the United States unless assisted and taken in charge by some one. The cantonal ministry of justice and police of Zurich, having obtained from the New York court a duplicate copy of the decree declaring John Weiss a citizen, and also a certified copy of the marriage certificate of John Weiss and Eliza Küngli, now present these to the United States consul at Zurich, and request that a passport be issued to Mrs. Weiss as a citizen of the United States. It is inevi table that Mrs. Weiss, wherever she be, must continue a public charge as a pauper lunatic, and it occurs that the authorities may possibly contemplate, in event of a passport being issued, to secure her return to the United States under the plea of her husband being there. What shall be done? SIR: Your dispatch No. 178, of December 22, 1887, has been received. It relates to the application of the cantonal authorities of Zurich, Swit zerland, for a passport for Mrs. Eliza Weiss. It appears from your dispatch that Mrs. Weiss is a Swiss by birth; that in 1873 she married in the city of New York John Weiss, a German subject, who was subsequently naturalized in the United States; that in 1878 the couple went to Europe, and in 1880 Weiss deserted his wife and returned to the United States; and that his wife has since remained abroad, and is now residing, a pauper and mentally diseased, at Wald, in the Canton of Zurich. The case has several points in common with that of Mrs. Margaret Blümeling, as to which sufficient instructions were sent you on July 11, 1885, and to which you are now referred, as well as to Wharton's Digest, section 193. There is, however, a peculiar feature in the present case as to which more particular information is desired. Whether the husband of Mrs. Weiss is still alive is, according to your statement, a matter of doubt; while there is no question that he deserted her in 1880, and has since then done nothing for her support. She is, it appears, a Swiss by birth. Under ordinary circumstances her continuous residence in Switzerland, after such death or desertion, would revive her Swiss domicile and nationality, and preclude her from claiming the rights of a citizen of the United States. If, therefore, you find that she has resided in Switzerland since 1880, apart from her husband, and deserted by him, then you must decline to give her a passport, she, by her election, having ceased to be a citizen of the United States. Nor is it any objection to this view that she is a lunatic. Even were it proved that she was such at the time of her husband's desertion, yet the local guardians who then took charge of her were entitled to make such an election in her behalf. I am, etc., T. F. BAYARD. No. 188.] No. 1033. Mr. Winchester to Mr. Bayard. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Berne, January 31, 1888. (Received February 13.) SIR: The Department recently had occasion to make acknowledg ment of the prompt response of the Swiss Federal Council to the request of this legation to place the American consulate at Zurich under proper police protection against apprehended disturbances on account of the execution of the Chicago anarchists. Zurich, for some time, has been infested with a large number of anarchists, mostly foreigners, enjoying the right of asylum under Swiss domicile, who have indulged in much violent demonstration by word of mouth and publications. Three of the most prominent leaders of the gang were expelled from Switzerland by a decree of the Federal Council on the 27th instant. This action is based on article 70 of the Swiss constitution, viz: The Confederation has the right to expel from its territory strangers compromising the domestic or foreign safety of Switzerland. The decree of expulsion, as published, is as follows: Resolution of the Federal Council ordering the expulsion of Alfred von Ehrenberg, Peter Emil Schopen, Ignaz Metzler, natives of Germany, who have, during their domicile in Switzerland, belonged to the party of anarchists, have maintained intimate relations with the chiefs of that party, supporting their ideas and projects, and, by attempting to execute the doctrines of the anarchists in their native country whilst residing in Switzerland, have been guilty of an abuse of the right of asylum; therefore, in application of article 70 of the Federal constitution, it is Resolved (1), The domicile in the territory of Switzerland is hereby prohibited to Alfred von Ehrenberg, Peter Emil Schopen, and Ignaz Metzler, natives of Germany. (2) The foregoing resolution is published in the Feuille Fédérale, and communicated to the federal department of justice and police and to the cantonal government of Zurich. In the name of the Federal Council. BERNE, January 27, 1888. HERTENSTEIN, The President of the Confederation. The Chancellor of the Confederation. If the decree of expulsion fails to suppress these disturbers of the public peace, it will be applied to others who may persist in the abuse of their domiciliary rights. Those who are natives or naturalized Swiss will be proceeded against according to the law of the canton. It is also understood that the Federal Council has requested the Zurich municipality to exercise full legal supervision over publications issued from the socialist printing office in that city. I am, etc., BOYD WINCHESTER. No. 1034. No. 190.] Mr. Winchester to Mr. Bayard. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Berne, February 13, 1888. (Received February 25.) SIR: In your number 116, January 5th ultimo, in answer to my 178 of December 22, 1887, relating to the application of the cantonal authorities of Zurich for a passport for Mrs. Eliza Weiss, a desire was ex pressed for more particular information as to whether the husband of Mrs. Weiss was still alive. A reply has been delayed by the effort to obtain the said information. An inquiry addressed through the United States consul at Zurich to the cantonal authorities brings the answer that to the best of their belief and knowledge Weiss is still alive and residing in the United States, and that a request has been forwarded to the Swiss minister at Washington to take steps to ascertain his whereabouts. Permit me to say, after reading the whole dispatch, that the matter of the desired information appears not to have been regarded as essential for the determination of the question submitted, for after the request is made for it, the dispatch goes on until it reaches the conclusion that Mrs. Weiss, upon the facts presented, is not entitled to a passport, entirely independent of the fact as to her husband being alive or not; for you say, "under ordinary circumstances her continuous residence in Switzerland after such death or desertion would revive her Swiss domicile and nationality and preclude her from claiming the rights of a citizen of the United States," when, to meet any presumption that her case could not be considered as one "under ordinary circumstances," you continue, alluding to her being a lunatic, that no objection can be made on that ground, for "even were it found that she was such at the time of her husband's desertion, yet the local guardians who then took charge of her were entitled to make such an election on her behalf." Her continuous residence in Switzerland since 1880, the date of her husband's desertion, and the desertion, were conceded; therefore the "revival of her Swiss domicile and nationality," as above held by you, must follow, and without reference to her husband being alive or not. This principle is again emphasized by the instruction with which the dispatch closes, "if you find she has resided in Switzerland since 1880 apart from her husband and deserted by him then you must decline to give her a passport, etc." I could not hesitate, under this clear and positive instruction, to decline issuing the passport, and have so advised the consul to notify the authorities. But on reflection the case causes me many serious misgivings. In originally submitting it to your superior judgment, the Blümeling case to which you refer was not overlooked. I remembered that case very well, and indeed, in some measure, the opinions therein given induced me to seek advice, as being one strongly appealing to the views "that the regulations as to passports should not be applied certainly in a way to exclude from a passport persons by whom it may be most needed." Here was a poor, helpless, demented woman, deserted by her husband, with neither the means nor the mind to do anything, asserting her American citizenship by presentation, through others, of the naturalization certificate of her husband. Diseased of mind, must she be held to a strict construction of a by no means well-defined principle as to loss of acquired citizenship by return and continuous residence in the country of origin, when this residence, continuing a few years, was a coerced residence in every sense, being brought abroad by her husband in all probability for that very purpose? Can she be deprived of her American citizenship through default of others? Does the failure of the local guardians who had charge of her, if there were any, for it has not appeared whether she is confined in an asylum or not, to make an election on her behalf, work the loss of her citizenship? Suppose there has never been any de lunatico inquirendo, and she is simply in charge of charitable relatives or friends, would their delinquency in making the "election" for her |