anything more is necessary than that these citizens when they visit Germany should be allowed to remain there without hindrance and depart in peace. The question raised in your first proposition of the length of time they may have been absent from the land of their birth, does not appear to this department to have any important bearing upon the status which they are entitled to occupy after their temporary return. If they are citizens of The United States, they are entitled to all the rights of citizens, whether they have been absent 10 years, or 5 years, or one year. And if they have thus become citizens of this country, it is difficult to understand why any special exemption should be claimed for them in respect to judicial proceedings, as mentioned in your proposition No. 2. The liability of a citizen of The United States before the courts of Hanover cannot depend upon the question whether he is a native or naturalized citizen, but upon the question only whether he has committed any offence against Hanoverian law. Expatriation, as you have been already instructed, is no such offence, and we cannot permit an unreasonable distinction to be made between different classes of our citizens. Your third and fourth propositions are not necessarily connected with this subject. It is certainly desirable, however, that no American citizen should be ordered out of a German State, without the notice and trial to which you refer; and should this be done, without good cause to justify the summary proceeding, it might well be regarded as an unfriendly act. Our existing Treaty with Hanover, you are aware, permits the free residence of our citizens there, and grants them free access to the judicial tribunals. It is quite possible that these privileges may be extended with advantage, and if so, the opportunity should not be lost. The trial of German citizens in this country is always public, and such should be the trial of our citizens in Germany. We should be glad, also, to secure for them a right of appeal. Of course we have no disposition to interfere with the domestic affairs of other States, or to dictate to them their modes of judicial proceeding. A friendly representation, however, on this subject, cannot be regarded as in any way objectionable, and may avoid unpleasant complications hereafter. Whenever one of our citizens is secretly tried and punished, the proceeding necessarily creates complaint, and always requires explanation. It is better to avoid the opportunity of complaint by avoiding the secrecy which leads to it. In respect to your fourth proposition for the "total exemption. of the citizens of The United States, residing in Hanover and Prussia, from liability to support in any manner soldiers, officers, and those connected with the military service of the country." I do not understand precisely the nature and extent of the existing obligations to which you refer; and before instructing you on this subject I shall be glad to hear from you again. Certainly the relinquishment of any tax imposed upon our citizens in Germany would be highly acceptable to this Government; but we do not wish to urge such an exemption to the extent of an interference with the just rights of the German States. We would, of course, ask nothing from other Governments in behalf of our citizens, which we would not be willing, in like cases, to concede to them. Having thus placed you fully in possession of the views of your Government, I have only to repeat the instruction already given you, to urge them, by all proper means, upon those Governments with whose representatives you may be brought in connection at Berlin. In this way it is hoped that such a friendly understanding may be reached on this whole subject as will make it impossible for any new case to arise, in reference to it, requiring the intervention of this Government. I am, &c. J. A. Wright, Esq. SIR, No. 62.-Mr. Cass to Mr. Wright. LEWIS CASS. Washington, December 17, 1859. HEREWITH I transmit the copy of a letter of the 18th October, addressed to this department by Isidor Dandson, a resident of California, in relation to the enforced military service now being performed in Prussia by his brother, Simon Dandson, whom he represents to be a citizen of The United States. You will investigate the circumstances connected with this case, and take such measures as, under the instructions already given you by the department respecting similar cases, you shall think proper, should the representations of Mr. Dandson prove to be correct. J. A. Wright, Esq. (Extract.) I am, &c. LEWIS CASS. No. 63.-Mr. Wright to Mr. Cass. Berlin, March 7, 1860. I HAVE the honour to forward herewith copies of the correspondence with the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the case of Darnston, or Dandson, or Davidson, mentioned in your despatch dated December 19, 1859. It appears that he, Davidson, was discharged from military service long since. His conduct is in keeping with that of a great many other naturalized citizens. It seems that he exhibited no passport, and did not state to any person that he was an American citizen. Hon. Lewis Cass. JOSEPH A. WRIGHT. (Inclosure 1.)-Mr. Wright to Baron de Schleinitz. M. LE BARON, Berlin, January 17, 1860. A DESPATCH from my Government, just received, incloses the complaint of Isidor D., that his brother, Simon Darntson (or Dandson), formerly a subject of His Majesty the King of Prussia, but now a citizen of The United States, left the State of California, one of The United States, to visit his parents, in Prussia, on the 20th of September, 1858, with a passport from the Government of The United States; and that upon his reaching Prussia, he has been forced to do military service in one of the regiments of its stationed at Grandenz. As such complaints of wrong annoy the Government of The United States greatly, I have to pray your Excellency to have this complaint investigated immediately, and to communicate to me the result as soon as possible. army Your Excellency will please permit me to renew, &c. Baron de Schleinitz. SIR, JOSEPH A. WRIGHT. (Inclosure 2.)-Baron von Schleinitz to Mr. Wright. (Translation.) Berlin, March 3, 1860. I MADE it my duty, on the receipt of your letter of the 17th January last, to inform the Minister of War of the reclamation of Mr. Isidor Darnston, or Dandson, citizen of The United States, who complains that his brother Simon, on the occasion of a visit made to his parents in Prussia, was compelled to enter the ranks of the army. I send you the result of a report which General de Roon demanded upon this subject from the competent military authority. Simon Darntson, or Dandson, is apparently the same who figures in the list of young people of the circle of Strasburg for the year 1852, under the name of Simon Davidson. This individual, born 6th May, 1831, at Strasburg, where his parents still live, is undoubtedly a Prussian by origin. The 2nd July, 1852, the Provincial Councillor of the circle caused a passport to be issued to him, available for one year, which authorized him to go to America, for which, in effect, he placed himself en route in the month of March, 1853. Simon Davidson only returned to his native country towards the end of the year 1858. Not having obtained, meantime, a permit of emigration, and not having been able to obtain one, because he had not yet satisfied his military duties, he was first enrolled in a battalion of the 3rd brigade of infantry, and on the 11th August, 1859, in the 3rd battalion of the 4th regiment of the landwehr, in garrison at Grandenz. Soon found to be unfit for military service, he was set at large 22nd November last, and since then has settled at Thorn. You will convince yourself by this exposé, Sir, that the proceed ing taken in regard to the said Simon Davidson has been in strict conformity to law. For the rest, this person has never pretended, at any examination he has undergone since his return to Prussia, that he was a citizen of The United States and provided with an American passport. J. A. Wright, Esq. Accept, &c. SCHLEINITZ. NOTIFICATION of the Hanoverian Government, relative to Commercial Intercourse between Hanover and Russia.- (Translation.) WHEREAS it has been agreed upon between the Royal Government of Hanover and the Imperial Government of Russia to extend likewise to Russian subjects residing in this Kingdom, as well as to the Hanoverian subjects residing in the Russian Empire, the mutual advantages enjoyed by the French and Russian subjects on the principle of reciprocity, in virtue of Article I of the Russian-French Treaty of Commerce and Navigation (of June, 1857 *), annexed herewith, in the original text, and in a German translation. The aforesaid is hereby brought to the knowledge of all whom it may concern for their information and future guidance. Hanover, 10th May, 1861. COUNT v. KIELMANSEGGE. DECREE of the Queen of Spain, for the Re-Incorporation of Santo Domingo with the Spanish Dominions.-Aranjuez, May 19, 1861. (Translation.) GENERAL DON PEDRO SANTANA, late President of the Republic of Santo Domingo, forwarded to the Governor and Captain-General of the Island of Cuba, for transmission to Her Majesty the Queen, the letter which is inserted below. Her Majesty the Queen has made herself acquainted with its contents with the liveliest satisfaction. MADAM, Letter referred to. "Santo Domingo, March 18, 1861. "The people who, together with the immortal Columbus, raised the standard of Castille in Hispaniola; who subsequently reconquered their former nationality, and restored to the Crown of Spain the pearl of which it had been deprived by the Treaty of Bâle; who were * Vol. XLVII. Page 651. afterwards torn, against their will, from the arms of that country which they had always regarded as a loving mother, and given up to the yoke of an oppressor who made it his task to destroy them; who with heroic valour shook off that yoke, and recovered their liberty and independence; who, lastly, owed to your Majesty a place among the nations as a Sovereign Power-come now, Madam, to deposit in your hands that sovereignty, and to merge once more their own liberty in that of your people. "The Dominican people, Madam, giving a free course to those sentiments of affection and loyalty which have been so long repressed, have unanimously and spontaneously proclaimed you as their Queen and Sovereign; and I, who have now the exalted and undeserved honour of being the organ of those sincere sentiments, lay at your Majesty's feet the keys of this lovely island. Accept them, Madam; achieve the happiness of this people, who so well deserve it; cause them to continue blessing you as they do now, and you will accomplish the only ambition of, Madam, your Majesty's most loyal and loving subject,' "PEDRO SANTANA.” Address to Her Majesty. Aranjuez, May 19, 1861. MADAM, AN event of happy augury, highly honourable to Spain, and seldom witnessed in the history of nations, has recently occurred in one of the ancient possessions of the Monarchy. The island of Hispaniola, the first which was occupied by the great Columbus, the object of predilection to the immortal Queen to whose sublime inspiration the discovery of a New World is due, mistress of its independence and arbitress of its destinies, invokes the august name of Spain, and lays at your Royal feet that very sovereignty which you recognized a few years ago. The victim of treason, deceived, surprised, it had broken the bonds which united it to the Spanish nation, to whose wise legislation it owed the prosperous existence it enjoyed. Since then, Madam, wars, revolutions, and the tremendous catastrophes which stifle at their birth all the germs of vitality and force, had reduced this noble people to an intolerable position. With the fountains of public prosperity sealed up, deprived of the resources necessary for an unembarrassed existence, the mark of foreign ambition, the theatre of reprehensible intrigues, their independence, since their separation from the metropolis, has been almost continuously a practical subjection, their liberty a painful slavery. For independence does not exist where there is no force to maintain it, and there is no liberty among modern nations where |