for damages to his personal property during the war, his excellency Mr. von Bülow, then in charge of the imperial foreign office, stated in his note of March 20, 1873, after informing the legation that the indemnity above referred to had been so allowed, as follows: "But when Mély subsequently produced a certificate of naturalization and claimed American citizenship in order to prevent the entry of his son's name on the military rolls, the circuit director (kreisdirector) of Saarburg decreed, under article 1, No. 4, of the law of June 14, 1871, the re-collection of the indemnity," the amount being retained from a credit due to Mély by the community for work performed. When subsequently a question of the right of further sojourn in Alsace-Lorraine of Mr. Mély's son arose the circuit director above referred to, seemingly in strict keeping with the position assumed by Mr. von Bülow as to Mély's nationality, informed Mély, in a communication dated Saarburg, March 2, 1877, a copy of a translation of which, as also of the covering letter of Mr. Mély, is herewith inclosed, the original having, at his request, been returned to him, as follows: "To your communication of the 27th ultimo, I respectfully reply that the treaty concluded between Germany and America on the 22d of February, 1868, applies also to all persons emigrating to America and returning thence who were born in Alsace-Lorraine." Although the case of Wackermann was decided adversely, the undersigned nevertheless cites it, for the reason that in the note of August 28, 1878, of the late minister of the United States at Berlin, Mr. Bayard Taylor, in which this case was presented to the imperial foreign office, the grounds on which the right of Wackermann to sojourn for two years in Alsace-Lorraine was claimed were distinctly stated to be the provisions of the treaty of February 22, 1868, as were, indeed, almost invariably the claims for relief addressed by this legation to the imperial foreign office in kindred cases. Mr. Taylor, in the note referred to, after acknowledging the receipt of the communication of the 25th instant of his excellency Mr. von Radowitz, in charge of the imperial foreign office, "communicating the decision of the imperial government expelling Joseph Wackermann, of Reichshofen, in Alsace-Lorraine, before the expiration of the two years' stay permitted to all German-American citizens by article 4 of the treaty of February 22, 1868," adds, "While trusting the imperial foreign ministry possesses full and satisfactory reasons for making this case an exception to the above stipulation of the treaty," &c., stating, further on, "The undersigned does not mean in any way to question the action of the imperial government in accordance with existing laws; but he would most respectfully request that in future cases where the provision contained in article 4 of the treaty of February 22, 1868, is suspended or set aside, a distinct specification of the nature of the offense may be furnished to this legation." In reply to this note of his excellency Mr. von Bülow, imperial secretary of state for foreign affairs, no dissent whatever was expressed to the position thus distinctly assumed by Mr. Taylor that the treaty of February 22, 1868, applied also to Alsace-Lorraine, his excellency basing the enforcement of the decree of expulsion of Wackermann solely on his bad behavior at Reichshofen. Nor has such dissent ever been expressed in any reply of the imperial foreign office to the numerous communications from this legation assuming this position, until now in the case of John Schehr, who, as it is now declared, still owes allegiance to Alsace-Lorraine, although in all the cases hereinbefore mentioned, and in many others which have been subjects of intervention by this legation, the imperial government has recognized the American citizenship of the individuals concerned, and has applied to their cases the provisions of the treaty of February 22, 1868. Though the case of Lütz was also decided against the United States, it is nevertheless striking evidence that the imperial government considered the treaty of 1868 as extending to Alsace-Lorraine. The decision against Lütz seems to have been based upon fraud in his naturalization papers, and upon that alone; the discovery of this fraud was the result of careful examination of records, documents, and dates-a tedious examination which the imperial government would have spared itself had it considered Lütz as not coming under the treaty of 1868. Fifth. This construction of the treaty having been acquiesced in and adopted by both parties during nearly ten years, the said construction has naturally come to be considered throughout the United States as fully settled, and naturalized citizens of the United States, formerly resident in Alsace-Lorraine, are therefore likely at any moment to return to their old homes for temporary visits, entirely innocent of any intention to violate the laws of the empire, entirely ignorant of any change in the views of their relations to the German Government; and are therefore liable to be arrested, fined, placed in the army, or summarily expelled from the country; and as they are entirely unprepared, not expecting anything of this kind, the detriment to their business and the distress to their families will be all the greater. Even now the legation is in receipt of a communication of the 15th instant, from Mr. Elie Bloch, the subject of the case mentioned under No. 6, herein before, in which he states that he has been ordered to leave the country, to which he did not return from the United States until January 28, 1879, and adds that when he showed the local authorities at Bischweiller the letters from the legation acquainting him with the favorable decisions obtained in his case from the imperial government, these authorities refused to give any attention to his plea, informing him that a new law had been made since his case had been submitted to the minister for foreign affairs, and this notwithstanding the note of January 25, 1879, in which his excellency Mr. von Bülow, the late secretary of state for foreign affairs, informed the legation that he had recommended to the appropriate authority (the legation felt itself justified in considering this recommendation as equivalent to a command) that Mr. Bloch be allowed to return to his native place, and to reside there two years without being liable to the infliction of a penalty against his person or his property. And notwithstanding the note of July 13, 1879, of his excellency Mr. von Philipsborn, in charge of the imperial foreign office, in which the legation was informed that the fine imposed upon Mr. Bloch for violation of military duty had been remitted together with costs. In connection with this case the undersigned begs leave to state that he will make Mr. Bloch's application for permission to remain at Bischweiller until October 1, next, at which time he intends to return to the United States, the subject of a special note to his highness. Sixth. Under the same circumstances and for the same reasons, a large number of naturalized citizens of the United States, formerly resident in Alsace-Lorraine, are liable to be subjected to great and unexpected hardship by the imposition of military fines for which they are utterly unprepared, their cases being similar to those already adjudged favorably by the imperial authorities, and they would thus be virtually punished by a law ex post facto in its character as far as they are concerned. Seventh. While the construction alluded to in the note of his highness may thus bring the deepest distress on individuals and their families, vexation to their friends, and consternation to many American citizens of German birth, and irritation to the hearts of millions of people on the other side of the Atlantic, the former construction already adopted, as above shown, by his highness's predecessor in office, has inflicted, and can inflict, but a comparatively trifling annoyance upon the authorities of AlsaceLorraine. The records of the imperial foreign office will show that the number of cases which have arisen in the last ten years has been small, only averaging about two cases a year, and there are no signs that the number of such cases is likely permanently to increase. In view, then, of these facts, namely, that the treaty of 1868 was applied to AlsaceLorraine, and acted upon by both the German and American Governments during the whole of the period which has elapsed since the incorporation of these districts into the empire; that the inconveniences are apparently trifling; that the benefits to both nations are great, especially in consolidating the old traditional friendship of the two nations, which has existed uninterruptedly from the time of the great Frederick until the present hour, the undersigned would most seriously urge upon his highness, the secretary of state ad interim for foreign affairs, a reconsideration of the decision referred to, and also, in any case, that the application of it be suspended and held in abeyance until the undersigned shall have been empowered to present more definite views from the government at Washington, and until such publicity be given in the United States to the understanding officially arrived at between the two nations that cases of hardship to unsuspecting and innocent persons, with their necessarily irritating effect upon the two nations, may be avoided. And he would especially urge that in the cases of Michael Pacquet, presented February 27, 1879; Franz and Theobald Hess, presented March 10, 1879; Joseph Lauber, presented November 21, 1879; Alphonse Sester, presented February 9, 1880; Alois Fischer, presented February 12, 1880; Jean P. Q. Schang, presented March 20, 1880; Alois Gehres, presented June 11, 1880; Aaron Weill, presented June 28, 1880; Nicholas V. Gabriel, presented July 2, 1880; Solomon Bloch, presented August 11, 1880; Elie Bloch, presented August 28, 1880, as well as in the case of John Schehr, the penalties of whatever kind imposed may be remitted, if the statements made by these persons be found correct, on the ground that they returned unsuspectingly and in good faith, relying upon the settled construction of the treaty of 1868, by the imperial government, in all previous cases similar to their own, and that, at least, so far as they are concerned, the penalties imposed are of a law ex post facto. To this last point he would especially call the attention of his highness, relying implicity on his highness's sense of justice. The undersigned may also here state that the question to which his highness the minister of foreign affairs refers was asked without the slightest expectation of an answer of the kind received; that in view of the facts above stated it was supposed that only one answer could possibly be given to it, and that it was hoped that the question would suggest to the imperial foreign office a strong argument based both on justice and policy in favor of bringing to a conclusion cases which had been so long delayed. In conclusion the undersigned would apologize to his highness for the delay in this reply, caused by the fact of his absence from Berlin and the necessity of a minute study under considerable difficulty of the voluminous documents in the considerable number of cases referred to. The undersigned avails himself, &c. AND. D. WHITE. No. 151.] No. 283. Mr. White to Mr. Evarts. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Berlin, September 21, 1880. (Received October 9.) SIR: At the request of Count Limburg-Stirum, minister in charge of foreign affairs, I called at the foreign office this morning. The subject which he opened to me was the Alsace-Lorraine matter referred to in my dispatch No. 146. He said that the German Government remain fully of the opinion that the treaties of 1868 do not apply, but that the government is ready to enter into negotiations regarding an additional treaty for Alsace-Lorraine. He also said that as the existing treaties were more to the advantage of the United States than of Germany, the government thought it proper that the proposals for negotiations be made from our side. Without acknowledging at all that the United States was more benefited than Germany, I promised to communicate with you, and in due time inform him of the result. I then pressed upon him the matter of the naturalized Americans from Alsace-Lorraine who had fallen into difficulties there, and urged that these cases receive speedy attention, laying stress upon the fact that these men certainly were guilty of no crime, and that it is a case of very great hardship, one which our own government feels deeply. To this he replied that this is a matter which he must reserve for the present, and cited the maxim, "Ignorantia juris non excusat." To this I replied that I could not see the application of the maxim in this case; that the construction was one which we had distinct reasons for supposing definitely settled; that certainly it was not ignorance of any law but rather a knowledge of what was taken as law by our government and acknowledged as the law by his own, which led these individuals into trouble; that it was utterly impossible for them to have acted otherwise. He replied that this was a matter which he must reserve, but intimated that there is another way out of the difficulty, by which I understood him to mean that there might be a direct interposition on their behalf from the central governmental authority. I would, therefore, respectfully ask for instructions on the points raised in this interview. You will observe that Prince von Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst has been succeeded by Count Limburg-Stirum. Whether the former is to return to his position at Paris or to resume his duties here, is uncertain. The name of Count von Hatzfeldt, now German ambassador at Constantinople, has been frequently mentioned in connection with the post here, but nothing seems decided. I need not say that these frequent changes add to the difficulties in the case. I have, &c., AND. D. WHITE. No. 138.] No. 284. Mr. Evarts to Mr. White. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 146, of the 1st instant, with its inclosures. You have very elaborately set forth the condition of affairs as regards the remission of fines and penalties imposed upon adopted citizens of this country upon their return to that portion of Germany known as Alsace-Lorraine. After so long a time since the German Empire was established, it is to be regretted that such a change of position has been adopted, and especially made retroactive and without warning to this government. Your repeated efforts to obtain a settlement of the question of the rights of adopted citizens of the United States returning to AlsaceLorraine, some of which are cases of eighteen months' standing, meet with the department's approval. You will take occasion to express the great concern felt here at this change of position, and also the hope that this subject will receive reconsideration. I am, &c., WM. M. EVARTS. No. 160.] No. 285. Mr. White to Mr. Evarts. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Berlin, October 15, 1880. (Received Nov. 3.) SIR: About an hour ago I received a telegram from one Aaron Weill, a naturalized citizen of the United States, whose case is referred to in the inclosure to my dispatch No. 146, of 1st September last, stating that he is in prison at Reichshofen, Alsace-Lorraine. Weill was born at Reichshofen June 2, 1855, emigrated to the United States August 22, 1872, and was naturalized there in December, 1879. He returned to his native place on the 1st of January of the present year, and shortly after was officially notified that in 1877 a fine of 600 marks had been imposed upon him because he did not present himself for military service, a fine which he refused to pay. On the 15th of June he was further informed by the local authorities that he must either perform military service or leave the country within four weeks. As a United States citizen, he protested against this decision and appealed to this legation. On June 28 I applied to the foreign office, asking that he be unmolested, and that the order for the fine be withdrawn. I referred to the case again, together with a number of other AlsaceLorraine cases, in my note to the foreign office of 28th of August last, but heard nothing in regard to it until this morning, when I received a note from the foreign office bringing Weill under its decision as regards persons returning to Alsace-Lorraine within ten years, and, as above stated, a telegram from Weill informing me that he was in prison. Immediately upon receiving this telegram, I called upon Count Limburg-Stirum, acting minister of foreign affairs, and represented the case to him as earnestly as possible. I dwelt upon the fact that Weill had every reason to suppose his right to return to Alsace-Lorraine undoubted, and upon the feeling such an imprisonment is likely to produce in the United States, urging strongly that while the questions lying below this and the other Alsace-Lorraine cases are in abeyance, Weill be released from prison. At first the minister seemed decidedly adverse to interfering with the case, saying that a release depended upon the concurrent assent of various authorities, and that he had little power in the premises. But as I presented the above considerations more fully, he seemed to take a different view, asked me for a memorandum of the case which I had prepared, and said that he would do every thing in his power to secure Weill's release. I have just telegraphed Weill that I have made application in his behalf, and shall do everything for him in my power. I shall continue to give the case my closest attention. No. 286. AND. D. WHITE. No. 161.] Mr. White to Mr. Evarts. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Berlin, October 18, 1880. (Received November 3.) SIR: In the last report made to the Department of State in Mr. Everett's dispatch, No. 95, of March 21, 1879, of disputed questions of American nationality settled between this legation and the German foreign office under the provisions of the naturalization treaty of 1868, twenty-four cases were given, extending over a period of fourteen months from October, 1878, to December, 1879, of which, only one remained at that time undecided. For convenience of reference the same series of numbers is continued in the present report, the old case of Klein (No. 18), being first completed. There have been altogether, from December, 1878, to December, 1879, inclusive, twenty-six new cases decided, of which seven have resulted unfavorably to those claiming the intervention of the legation; of these, two (Lutz, No. 25, and Iversen, No. 26) were clearly proved to be deserters from the German army; the third case was one of a gross offense against the civil laws, and the remaining four (Nos. 32, 34, 48 and 49,) were decided against us under the new ruling of the German Government, that Alsace-Lorraine is not covered by the treaty of 1868. I have, &c., [Inclosure in No. 161.1 AND. D. WHITE. LIST OF MILITARY CASES REQUIRING INTERVENTION. 18. E. F. O. Klein (see Foreign Relations for 1879, p. 372).-Mr. Klein's case being still unsettled at the end of February, 1879, and the property, which had been taken from him eighteen months previously by the German officials, not having been yet returned to him, the legation, on the 7th of March, 1879, wrote to the foreign office requesting their attention to the matter, and, in consequence of an instruction of the 26th of June, 1873, from the Department of State, to which Klein had appealed, the |