Mr. Kasson to Mr. Bayard.
Berlin, May 19, 1885. (Received June 8.)
Sir: I beg to invite your special attention to tbe note from the German foreign office, of which a copy with translation is herewith inclosed.
The note is evidently written in a tone of conviction, and aims to fairly meet the considerations presented in the Department’s instruction, No. 95.
In my No. 189, I called the Secretary’s attention to one of the assumptions of that instruction which I thought not to be applicable as an objection to the German argument. Still, in executing that instruction by my communication to the foreign office, I felt bound to omit no point in the Department’s views as communicated to me.
This point in our argument is first handled by Count Hatzfeldt, who takes precisely the position which I indicated as the proper one in that dispatch to Mr. Frelinghuysen.
If the loss of American citizenship is first assumed, we can have no further right of intervention, nor duty to perform, in respect to German action against one who would have thus become an alien to both Governments. But the fundamental question is, has the naturalized citizen lost his American right under the treaty of 1868 by virtue of the length of his residence in Germany, as claimed by the German Government?
The note of Count Hatzfeldt appears at first to yield something to my argument (foreign office No. 37) against the arbitrary right of our Government to expel at its will a citizen or subject of the other country. It passes soon, however, to a practical affirmation of the inherent right of each Government, for reasons satisfactory to itself, to expel a foreigner, notwithstanding the general provisions of our treaties of amity and commerce, which I referred to.
Upon this head it still appears to me that our argument is the stronger, that this right is dependent upon a sufficient cause, and, that this sufficiency is a fair subject for diplomatic reclamation. This would not exist if the German contention is justifiable, which claims for itself an absolute and irresponsible exercise of the right.
The further view presented by the note, touching the abuses which exist, and may continue to increase, of a really German population permanently established in their midst, which claims a foreign allegiance, and which yet renders no duties to either this or the allegiant country—[Page 417]this view deserves a candid consideration when an effort shall be made for a final settlement of our pending controversy.
In view of the recent change of administration at Washington, I have not felt at liberty to continue the correspondence under my former instructions. I have therefore, reserved the questions for the further appreciation of my Government, as indicated in my note (foreign office No. 66), a copy of which is herewith inclosed.
I have, &c.,