No. 290.
Mr. Kasson to Mr.
Frelinghuysen.
Legation of
the United States,
Berlin, February 20, 1885.
(Received March 9.)
No. 179.]
Sir: I inclose herewith copies of the
correspondence between this legation and the German foreign office in
respect to the action of certain German local authorities in furnishing
money to one Andreas Rausch to enable him to emigrate to the United States,
and after the expiration of his sentence of imprisonment for five years for
the crime of arson.
[Page 403]
It will be observed that the law of 1875 (chapter 140, sec. 5) only covers
criminal “persons who are undergoing a sentence for
conviction,” &c., “or whose sentence has been remitted on condition of
their emigration.” Because Rausch had served out his sentence the German
Government claimed, it seems to me rightly, that under this law his
immigration could not be opposed.
In acknowledging the reception of this note I called the attention of the
foreign office to a later law, in which the word “convict”is used in
describing persons who shall not be permitted to land. Owing to the failure
to supply this legation with the volume containing the statute, or the date
of its passage, I could only give the section as it had been transmitted to
this legation, with instruction No. 280, of August 18, 1884.
I assumed that the word “convict” covers those who have been convicted of
felonious crimes, even after the expiration of their sentence.
On this point I request an instruction from the Department.
I have, &c.,
[Inclosure 1 in No. 179.]
Mr. Everett to Dr.
Busch.
Legation of the United States,
Berlin, August 27,
1884.
The undersigned, chargé d’affaires ad interim of
the United States of America, has the honor to inform Dr. Busch, under
secretary of state, in charge of the imperial foreign office, that
information has reached him, under date of the 23d August, from the
American commercial agent at Mainz, that there would be shipped from
Bremen to the United States within a few days, by the North German Lloyd
Steamship Company, a person named Andreas Eausch, believed to be a
pauper or criminal thirty-one years old, from Fitzendorf, Bavaria, and
whose passage money is supposed to be paid by the local officials at
Königshofen.
It is further reported that certain shipping agents were applied to in
the matter, who declined to have anything to do with shipping a pauper
or criminal, and returned the money forwarded £hem for that purpose, and
that thereupon his passage was secured for him through one of the Lloyd
agents at Königshofen, either Wilhelm Berlens, R. B. Glückstein, or
Peter Rathgeber. His departure was intended to be about the 27th of the
current month.
The undersigned, while furnishing these facts without in any way vouching
for their correctness, as the reputation of shipping agents is in
question, would respectfully request that the matter may be
investigated, and, should it prove to be as stated, the proper steps may
be taken for returning the said Andreas Rausch to his own country, as a
person whom the United States would not be expected, under the general
comity of nations, to receive on their shores.
The undersigned avails, &c.
[Inclosure 2 in No.
179.—Translation.]
Dr. Busch to Mr.
Kasson.
Foreign
Office, Berlin,
February 16, 1885.
The undersigned has had the honor to receive the note of Mr. Sidney
Everett of August 27 last, relating to the emigration to America of
Andreas Rausch, of Fitzendorf.
In view of the communications contained in the same, occasion has been
taken to cause the facts to be investigated. This investigation has
resulted in showing that Andreas Rausch, whose conveyance to America,
for the rest, failed to take place in consequence of the intervention of
the American consul at Bremen, was in the year 1873 condemned for arson
to imprisonment at hard labor for five years; he had, however, years ago
completely served his term of punishment and had lately voluntarily
determined to emigrate. He should not therefore be considered a
“criminal” in the sense of section 5 of the American law of March 3,
1875, “An act supplementary to [Page 404]
the acts in relation to immigration,” since the prohibition of
immigration contained in the same, according to the interpretation
adopted also by American lawyers, is not so much directed against those
persons who have already expiated the crimes they have committed by
serving their penal sentence, but rather against those only who evade
punishment by emigration, or to whom punishment is remitted on condition
of emigration.
As to the further question whether Andreas Rausch should be considered a
“pauper,” investigation has shown that he had been provided with such an
amount of means, partly by his home community, partly from charitable
funds, that a sum of money would have remained to him for his further
maintenance after payment of his passage over.
It has been further established that the said Rausch is in the best years
of manhood, and healthy and able-bodied. Under these circumstances it
would seem that he should also not be considered a pauper, and not be
excluded from immigration into the United States as such.
While the undersigned has the honor to communicate the above to Mr. John
A. Kasson, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the
United States of America, he, at the same time, avails, &c.
[Inclosure 3 in No. 179.]
Mr. Kasson to Dr.
Busch.
Legation of the United States,
Berlin, February 18,
1885.
The undersigned, envoy, &c., of the United States of America, while
acknowledging the reception of the esteemed note of Dr. Busch, under
secretary of state, in charge of the imperial office of foreign affairs,
&c., dated the 16th instant, and relating to the case of Andreas
Rausch, begs at the same time to call his attention to the provisions of
the second section of a law of Congress regulating immigration into the
United States, which is of a more recent date than the law to which the
said note of Dr. Busch referred, and which was also in force at the time
of the incident which is the occasion of this correspondence.
A copy of the section of the law last above mentioned is inclosed
herewith for the information of the foreign office. It will be observed
that its terms have a wider scope than the former act, and would appear
to include the case of Rausch.
The undersigned, &c.
