No. 6.
Mr. Francis to Mr.
Frelinghuysen.
Legation of
the United States,
Vienna, February 5, 1885.
(Received March 3.)
No. 53.]
Sir: I have the honor to inclose herewith copies of
communications transmitted by me to the Imperial and Royal minister of
foreign affairs and translations of notes from Count Szögyényi in response
thereto, together with some accompanying papers, in regard to the arrest by
the military authorities at Krakau of Louis Feinknopf, a citizen of the
United
[Page 6]
States, with a view of exacting
from him service in the Imperial and Royal army.
The case may be stated as follows: Feinknopf, born at Krakau, Galicia, in
1860; emigrated to the United States in 1876; naturalized and declared a
citizen of the United States April 3, 1882, by the United States district
court for the southern district of Ohio; subsequently established residence
in New York City; for first time since emigration visited his native place,
Krakau, arriving there October 20, 1884; summoned by military authorities of
that place to report for duty in the Imperial and Royal army October 23;
claimed exemption from such service on ground of his United States
citizenship, and in evidence thereof presented his certificate of
naturalization; permitted to visit Vienna 26th of October to confer with
United States minister, in whose hands he placed certificate of
naturalization and other papers establishing facts as above stated.
In interview with Baron Pasetti, at foreign office, on the subject, October
27, I presented to him the papers bearing conclusive evidence in this case,
and said that, in a matter so clear as to exemption from military
conscription under the treaty of 1870 between the United States and
Austria-Hungary, I hoped instructions would be promptly communicated to the
proper authorities at Krakau to release Feinknopf from arrest as one owing
service in the Imperial Royal army, and to erase his name from the rolls as
owing such service. October 28, I addressed a note to Baron Pasetti, copy of
which is herewith inclosed, carefully recapitulating the facts, and
earnestly repeating this request. In an interview with him at the foreign
office November 7, I called his attention to the fact that I had received no
reply to my note of October 28, as above, and said that delay in this matter
was embarrassing. He replied that the subject had been referred to the
proper department and he would request a prompt decision thereon. Hearing
nothing further on the subject, I addressed a second note to Baron Pasetti,
November 21, copy of which is inclosed, pointing out that continued delay
involved hardship and injustice toward a citizen of the United States who
was entitled, under treaty obligations, to prompt release from the claim
made upon him by the military authorities at Krakau. On the same day I had a
personal interview with Count Szögyényi, first chief of section, ministry of
foreign affairs, and presented to him Feinknopf’s naturalization certificate
and other papers. He said there had been delay in this case because of
unavoidable circumstances, but it should now have prompt attention. Still
the delay was prolonged, and meantime Feinknopf wrote me that he was obliged
to conceal himself at Krakau to avoid being forced into the army. November
29 I received first note from foreign office on this subject, translation of
which is inclosed, saying the matter had been referred to the ministry of
public defense with request of urgency. December 5 I again pressed Count
Szögyényi in personal interview for a decision in the case. He replied that
he was doing all that was possible to hasten this result, which could not be
much longer delayed. I said to him that the proofs being conclusive it would
seem that the relief to which Feinknopf was entitled should at once be
granted to him.
The count replied that “we at the foreign office have to work through the
ministry of war, and there is the delay.” I answered that I could only know
the Imperial Royal Government in the premises as it was represented at the
foreign office, and that I believed the war department did not make
treaties. I was reassured that no effort would be spared to hasten a
satisfactory conclusion of the question. But no result
[Page 7]
having yet been announced, I addressed a third note on
the subject to Count Szögyényi, dated December 16, copy of which is
inclosed, urging that answer be made to my request, and setting forth
reasons which it seemed to me should have prevailing weight. Still no
decision came, and on December 23 I again called upon Count Szögyényi, and
immediately on meeting him he exclaimed: “This case of Feinknopf’s has given
me more trouble than any affair I have had to deal with at the foreign
office.” He said with emphasis that the ministry of foreign affairs agreed
with me as to facts and conclusions, and that Feinknopf could not be held to
serve in the Imperial Royal army, but it had been assumed elsewhere that
there was not sufficient evidence to warrant his discharge. He then
requested me to furnish him with Feinknopf’s naturalization certificate,
which had been previously examined by both Baron Pasetti and himself and
returned to me, saying he feared it had been their mistake not to have taken
this certificate for the information of the ministry of war in the
beginning. I handed him the paper, remarking that while recognizing his
excellent intentions in dealing with the subject under consideration, I must
respectfully insist upon an answer to my request in behalf of Feinknopf.
His excellency declared there could not be much longer delay. December 28 I
received a note from Count Szögyényi (translation of which is inclosed),
stating that delay was caused by objections of the Imperial Royal commander
of the respective army corps, and that Feinknopf’s naturalization
certificate (which had been presented by me at foreign office for
information and use, if required, October 28, and on several subsequent
occasions, and always returned after observation until December 23, when
Count Szögyényi retained it, as mentioned above) would likely be the means
of bringing the whole affair “to a speedy and favorable decision.” Delay
still continued, however, and on 8th January, in interview at foreign
office, I again earnestly pressed Count Szögyényi for quick decision, saying
that such delay seemed unjustifiable. He replied that “we at the foreign
office are doing all we can to hasten the decision.” Receiving intelligence
from Krakau January 10, that Feinknopf had been arrested, placed in the
barracks, and impressed into service as a common soldier, I addressed a
note, January 10, to Count Szögyényi, copy of which is inclosed, strongly
protesting in behalf of my Government against this proceeding, and
requesting that Feinknopf be promptly relieved from his practical
imprisonment.
January 10th I received a note from Count Szögyényi, translation of which is
inclosed, announcing that the Imperial Royal military commander at Krakau
had been ordered by telegraph to grant a furlough to Feinknopf, pending
decision of the case. January 10th I sent a note to Count Szögyényi, copy
inclosed, acknowledging above, and insisting that the discharge be
unconditional. January 12th a note was addressed by me, copy inclosed, to
same, with telegram from Feinknopf’s mother at Krakau of same date, stating
that her son had not been furloughed. January 13th I received a note from
Count Szögyényi, copy inclosed, stating that he had received a communication
from the Imperial Royal ministry of war to the effect that an order had been
sent by telegraph to the military authorities at Krakau, 9th instant, to
liberate Feinknopf on furlough immediately.
January 14th note from same was received by me (copy inclosed), stating on
authority of the Imperial Royal ministry of war that Feinknopf was liberated
on furlough 9th instant, “As I was convinced from the beginning,” says Count
Szögyényi. January 20th sent a note to the latter in reply (copy inclosed),
with letter from Feinknopf, showing that
[Page 8]
he was arrested and placed in barracks January 8th, and was held as a
common soldier until January 13th, when he was released on furlough, not
“immediately”on 9th, as his excellency had been erroneously informed, also
repeating, with earnest urgency, my request that he be discharged
unconditionally from all claim to service in the Imperial Royal army January
22nd I received a note from Count Szögyényi (translation inclosed),
announcing that the Imperial Royal ministry of public defense had, on the
evidence presented, ordered the discharge of Louis Feinknopf “from the
military service, by virtue of articles 1 and 2 of the treaty of September
20th, 1870.”
February 2nd I transmitted a note to Count Szögyényi (copy inclosed),
acknowledging receipt of above, and informing his excellency that a letter
received by me from Feinknopf declares that on 30th January he was informed
at office of military authorities at Krakau the order for his discharge had
just been received, and that five days more would elapse before the
certificate could he delivered to him.
In this communication I also referred to the embarrassing delay in the
decision of the case as attributable to no omission of mine in furnishing
complete evidence from the beginning of Feinknopf’s exemption under the
treaty from military service in the Imperial Royal army, and to correct
erroneous inference that might possibly be drawn from his excellency’s
allusion in his note of December 28th, to the naturalization certificate as
having been left by me at the foreign office a few days prior to that
time.
From this detailed statement and the accompanying correspondence, to which
latter I invite your attention, it will be seen that for a period of nearly
three months Louis Feinknopf, a citizen of the United States, owing no
service to the Austro-Hungarian Government, nor accused of any crime, was
subjected to annoyance and persecution, and finally to a deprivation of his
personal liberty, by the military authorities at Krakau, unchecked by
governmental power until the period of his release on furlough, January
13th, and his unconditional discharge as subsequently ordered, but which had
not been executed up to January 30th; this, too, in violation of treaty
obligations and after the facts and evidence were laid before the ministry
of foreign affairs, proving that the military proceedings against him would
involve a violation of the treaty of 1870, with resulting assault upon the
personal liberty of a citizen of the United States. The ministry of foreign
affairs never expressed any doubt as to Feinknopf’s exemption from military
duty here under treaty; in personal interviews the fact was conceded. The
unjustifiable delay which permitted the wrong to be done, with the
aggravation of forcible arrest and impressment into service while the case
was pending, was no doubt owing to the obstruction of military authority.
But governments make treaties and are bound in good faith to execute the
solemn agreements, allowing no departments within their own organization to
retard or defeat their provisions to the injury of persons or property. It
has occurred to me that, referring to this case as an example, it might be
expedient for the Department, in the interest of American citizenship, to
remind the Government of Austria-Hungary that such delay and wrongful
proceedings as have characterized this case are inadmissible and afford
reasons for serious protest. Awaiting instruction on this head, if
instruction is deemed advisable by the Department.
I have, &c.,
[Page 9]
[Inclosure in No. 53.]
Mr. Francis to
Baron Pasetti.
Legation of the United States,
Vienna, October 28,
1884.
Your Excellency: Referring to my interview with
your excellency, yesterday afternoon, relative to an American citizen,
one Louis Feinknopf (Leibel being the Hebrew
rendering of the name Louis), who has been
notified by the military authorities at Krakau to report for service in
the Austrian army, I have the honor to submit the facts in the case for
the consideration of your excellency.
Leibel (or Louis) Feinknopf was born at Krakau on the 2d of January,
1860. His father, Markus Feinknopf, died many years ago. His mother, a
widow, still resides at the old home in Krakau. In September, 1876,
being then sixteen years of age, Leibel (or Louis) Feinknopf emigrated
to the United States, no one of his family accompanying him. Nearly six
years thereafter—his residence being continuous in that country from the
period of his arrival there—he was naturalized and declared to be a
citizen of the United States, by the district court of the United States
for the southern district of Ohio, on the 3d of April, 1882.
On Monday, October 20, Leibel (or Louis) Feinknopf arrived at his native
place (Krakau) from America, for the purpose of visiting his mother and
other relatives. On the 23d of October he was notified by the military
authorities at Krakau to appear and report for service in the Austrian
army. He answered the summons, protesting, however, that as an American
citizen he owed no such service, and requesting that he be permitted to
visit Vienna to confer with the United States minister there in a matter
so vitally affecting his rights.
The permission was promptly granted, and Feinknopf reported tome at this
legation, yesterday morning, October 27.
I have presented to your excellency, in brief, a statement of the facts
in this case. The question now recurs, can the American citizen
Feinknopf be properly held for service in the Austrian army?. I think
the treaty of 1870 between the United States and Austria-Hungary should
settle this question. Article I, of that treaty, reads as follows:
“Citizens of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, who have resided in the
United States of America uninterruptedly at least five years, and during
such residence have become naturalized citizens of the United States,
shall be held by the Government of Austria and
Hungary to be American citizens, and shall be treated as
such.”
It will be conceded, I think, that Feinknopf has met all the conditions
for admission to American citizenship above set forth, and must
therefore be recognized as a citizen of the United States under the
terms of Article I of the treaty.
But being an American citizen can he still be held for military service
in his native country? In answer to this, the vital question in the
case, I beg leave to call your excellency’s attention to Article II of
the treaty:
“In particular, a former citizen of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, who,
under the first article, is to be held as an American citizen, is liable
to trial and punishment, according to the laws of Austro-Hungary, for
non-fulfillment of military duty.
- “(1) If he has emigrated after having been drafted at the time of
conscription, and thus having become enrolled as a recruit for
service in the standing army.
- “(2) If he has emigrated whilst he stood in service under the flag
or had a leave of absence only for a limited time.
- “(3) If, having a leave of absence for an unlimited time, or
belonging to the reserve or to the militia, he has emigrated after
having received a call into service, or after a public proclamation
requiring his appearance, or after war has broken out.”
“On the other hand, a former citizen of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy,
naturalised in the United States, who by or after his emigration has
transgressed the legal provisions on military duty by any acts or
omissions other than those above enumerated in the clauses numbered 1,
2, and 3, can on his return to his original country
neither be held subsequently to military duty nor remain liable to
trial and punishment for the non-fulfillment of his military
duty.”
It does not appear that Leibel (or Louis) Feinknopf “has transgressed the
legal provisions on military duty by any acts or omissions enumerated in
the clauses numbered 1, 2, and 3; and this being conceded he cannot be
held here (quoting the language of the treaty) to military service nor
remain liable to trial and punishment for non-fulfillment of his
military duty.”
In this connection the undersigned begs leave to call your excellency’s
attention to a case almost exactly similar to this one, which was
presented by Mr. Phelps in a note from this legation to His Excellency
Count Kalnoky, F. O. No. 23, of the date of June 3, 1882, and the reply
thereto by Count Szögyényi for the minister of foreign affairs,
[Page 10]
18637/7 dated October 6, 1882,
wherein it is announced that the sentence passed upon the persons named,
Leeb and Jacob Mörser, American citizens, has been repealed, and that
they were discharged, their case coming under the provisions of Article
II of the treaty of September 20, 1870, by which they were exempted from
military service in the Austrian army.
Your excellency will observe by reference to this case as above that the
decision arrived at applies to the one to which I now urgently call your
attention.
The undersigned claims in behalf of Leibel (or Louis) Feinknopf exemption
from military service in the imperial royal army under the provisions of
the treaty of September 20, 1870, and respectfully requests that
instructions be communicated by the Government of his Imperial Majesty
to the military authorities at Krakau to discharge the said Feinknopf
from arrest and discontinue all proceeding intended to exact from him
service in the Imperial Royal army.
The undersigned avails, &c.,
[Inclosure 2 in No. 53.]
Mr. Francis to
Baron Pasetti.
Legation of the United States,
Vienna, November 21,
1884.
Your Excellency: Referring to my note F. O. 11,
of the date of October 28, 1884, relating to the case of Louis (or
Leibel) Feinknopf, an American citizen, who has been summoned by the
military authorities at Krakau to report for assignment to duty in the
Austrian army, I have the honor to state that so far he has received no
notification assuring him exemption from his service to which he is
entitled under the treaty of 1870 between the United States and
Austria-Hungary, and he writes me, under date of November 19, that the
summons is still held as binding upon him.
I again earnestly invoke the attention of your excellency to this subject
as one that concerns the personal liberty and rights of a citizen of the
United States. If the representation of this case as made by me is an
accurate statement of the facts, as I think it is, Louis (or Leibel)
Feinknopf is no more subject to conscription for service in the Austrian
army than any native citizen of the United States would be on visiting
this country, and it would seem that he should be promptly relieved from
arrest and his name erased from the military roll.
I need not say, what will readily occur to your excellency, that for a
period of four weeks he has been subjected to anxiety and inconvenience
in consequence of the proceedings of the military authorities at Krakau
against him, and very properly he asks that in his behalf there may be
accorded the protection assured him as an American citizen under solemn
treaty obligations.
Respectfully requesting reply to my communication of October 28 on this
subject, an answer to this note as soon as may be convenient to your
excellency,
I have, &c.,
[Inclosure 3 in No.
53.—Translation.]
Count Szögyényi to
Mr. Francis.
Vienna, November 29,
1884.
Referring to the esteemed note of the 21st instant, F. O. No. 13, I have
the honor to inform the honorable John M. Francis, envoy extraordinary
and minister plenipotentiary of the United States of America, that I
have immediately transmitted the documents concerning the case of Louis
Feinknopf to the Imperial Royal ministry of public defense with the
request that, as the matter was urgent, the decision might be sent in
the briefest possible time.
The undersigned embraces this occasion to renew to the honorable envoy of
the United States of North America the expression of his high
esteem.
For the minister of foreign affairs.
[Page 11]
[Inclosure 4 in No. 53.]
Mr. Francis to
Count Szögyényi.
Legation of the United States,
Vienna, December 16,
1884.
Your Excellency: Referring to my notes,
numbered 11 and 13, of the dates of October 28 and November 21,
respectively, and the note of your excellency numbered 27180/7, dated
November 29, treating of the case of an American citizen, Louis (or
Leibel) Feinknopf, who was summoned in October last by the military
authorities at Krakau to report for duty in a regiment to which he had
been assigned, I now beg leave to state that, in my notes referred to,
together with memoranda on the subject handed by me to your excellency
on the 28th of November, namely: (1) Certificate of the birth of the
said Feinknopf; (2) notarial certificate showing the year when he
emigrated to the United States, and (3) the summons served upon him by
the military authorities at Krakau, the evidence is presented that under
the treaty of 1870 the American citizen, Louis (or Leibel) Feinknopf,
cannot be held to do military duty for Austria-Hungary, and I therefore
requested that he be relieved from arrest and his name be stricken from
the military roll at Krakau.
The case appeared so clear in the light of recent precedent as well as
from the evidence presented, that it seemed to me a decision would be
arrived at without much delay; but seven weeks have already elapsed
since the matter was brought to the attention of his Imperial Royal
Majesty’s Government, and I am not yet advised as to its action, if
action has been taken by it in the premises. I take the liberty,
therefore, of again calling your excellency’s attention to this matter,
seeing that further delay may involve serious inconvenience, as to me it
will be embarrassing.
I avail myself, &c.,
[Enclosure 5 in No.
53.—Translation.]
Count Szögyényi to
Mr. Francis.
Vienna, December 28,
1884.
In the matter of Leibel Feinknopf, the Imperial Royal ministry of foreign
affairs respectfully begs to convey to the knowledge of the Hon. M.
Francis, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United
States of America, that the Imperial Royal Statthalter (governor of
province) at Lemberg has reported by telegraph that the Imperial Royal
commander of the respective army corps has raised objections to the
discharge of the above named from military service, which will cause a
renewal of investigations to which is to be attributed the delay in
coming to a decision of the case.
In the mean time the Imperial Royal Statthalter (governor of province) at
Lemberg has been put in possession of Leibel Feinkopf’s naturalization
certificate, deposited here a few days ago by the honorable envoy of the
United States of North America, which document is likely to be the means
of bringing the whole affair to a speedy and favorable decision.
The Imperial Royal ministry of foreign affairs, not losing sight of this
matter, will do everything in its power to effect an early settlement,
and will immediately advise the envoy of the United States of America of
such fact.
The undersigned, &c.
For the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
[Inclosure 6 in No. 53.]
Louis Feinknopf to
Mr. Francis.
Sir: I arrived here this morning and was
immediately arrested by the authorities at Krakau, forcibly enlisted in
the army, and now find myself in their power, without seeing my way out
of it, for I am at this very moment at the soldiers’ retreat and in
uniform. If there is anything that can be done for me it must be done at
once, for I am in great distress and I only look to you for help. The
papers which you gave me were taken from me and were not respected.
I pray you to do your utmost, and go in person to the ministry of foreign
affairs, show them my dispatch so that the case meets with speedy
attention.
Yours &c.,
[Page 12]
[Inclosure 7 in No. 53.]
Mr. Francis to
Count Szögyényi.
Legation of the United States,
Vienna, January 10,
1885.
Your Excellency: Referring to my interview with
your excellency on the 8th instant respecting the case of Louis (or
Leibel) Feinknopf, an American citizen who, in disregard of treaty
obligations, has been deprived of his liberty by the military
authorities at Krakau, I now desire to enter a formal protest in behalf
of my Government against the wrongful action of the Krakau authorities
referred to. Their course seems to have been the more indefensible from
the fact that many weeks prior to the action complained of the
Government of his Imperial Royal Majesty had been fully informed of the
status of Feinknopf as an American citizen
clearly entitled under the treaty of 1870 to exemption from any military
service to the latter power.
In view of information received by me from Krakau this morning to the
effect that Feinknopf was, on the 8th instant, forcibly taken to the
barracks, compelled to put on the military uniform of a soldier in the
ranks, and placed under the strictest surveillance; and furthermore,
that, showing to the authority which consigned him to this indignity, a
certificate issued by this legation On the previous day, the 8th
instant, to the effect that his naturalization certificate and other
papers named had been placed in possession of the ministry of foreign
affairs and were still held by said ministry, the Krakau authority
referred to refused to return the said certificate to Feinknopf on his
demand for the same. In view of these facts, and considering also that
this citizen of the United States is still held by the military power in
deprivation of his liberty, and under the most rigorous supervision as
if a prisoner guilty of criminal misdoing, I must earnestly repeat my
request that the said Feinknopf be promptly relieved from his practical
imprisonment by the military authorities at Krakau, and that his name be
stricken from the military roll as owing service in the Imperial Royal
army.
Your excellency will permit me the liberty to suggest that this case
seems to be one involving the invasion of personal rights, and it will
no doubt occur to the mind of your excellency that some explanation of
the long delay in its disposition in a form for record would be
desirable in the interest of the cordial amity existing between two
great and always friendly nations. At the same time I desire to thank
your excellency for the earnest personal interest your excellency has
from the beginning manifested in this case to secure its satisfactory
adjustment.
I avail myself, &c.,
[Inclosure 8 in No.
53—Translation.]
Count Szögyényi to
Mr. Francis.
Vienna, January 10,
1885.
The imperial royal ministry of foreign affairs, in transmitting herewith
the telegram of Leib Feinknopf, of the 8th instant, has the honor of
informing Hon. John M. Francis, envoy extraordinary and minister
plenipotentiary of the United States of America, that the imperial royal
military commander at Krakau has been ordered by telegraph to furlough
the above named, pending the decision of the case.
In view of this fact the imperial royal ministry of foreign affairs
reserves to itself the privilege of making further communication to the
honorable envoy of the United States as soon as the competent
authorities have brought the matter to a decision, which intention had
been made known also in the note of the 28th ultimo, No. 29856.
For the minister of foreign affairs.
[Inclosure 9 in No. 53.]
Mr. Francis to
Count Szögyényi.
Legation of the United States,
Vienna, January 10,
1885.
Your Excellency: I have the honor to
acknowledge the receipt of the esteemed note, 153/7, of this day’s date,
informing me that the military authorities at Krakau had been instructed
by telegraphic order to release upon furlough Louis or Liebel Feinknopf,
the
[Page 13]
American citizen who had
been consigned to the barracks at that place and put in uniform for
service in the imperial royal army, as stated in my communication of
this day which had been dispatched when the note of your excellency, as
above, was delivered to me.
It is satisfactory to know that Feinknopf has been allowed his liberty
pending the decision of his case by the imperial royal government, but
it is still important that his rights under the solemn guarantees of
treaty shall be promptly and fully recognized to the end that he may
have the liberty of action accorded to any citizen of the United States,
who, visiting this country, has violated no law of the Imperial Royal
Government.
And I have to urge most earnestly that the decision which has beer, so
long delayed, to the injury of an American citizen who has been the
subject of military prosecution at Krakau, may be rendered at as early a
day as possible.
I renew, &c.,
[Inclosure 10 in No. 53.]
Mr. Francis to
Count Szögyényi.
Legation of the United States,
Vienna, January 12,
1885.
Your Excellency: Referring to your excellency’s
note of the 10th instant, No. 153/7, informing me that an order had been
sent by telegraph directing the military authorities at Krakau to
liberate on furlough the American citizen Louis (or Leibel) Feinknopf,
pending decision by the Imperial Royal Government upon his case, I now
hasten to transmit to your excellency a dispatch received at this
legation this evening, by which it appears that up to the time when this
dispatch was written (apparently at a late hour this afternoon)
Feinknopf had not been granted the furlough as above.
I need scarcely assure your excellency that this delay involves
additional embarrassment. To my mind, as I think it must also appear to
your excellency, the course of the military authorities at Krakau in
this matter seems entirely unjustifiable.
Your excellency will oblige me by returning the inclosed dispatch as
convenience may permit.
I have, &c.,
[Inclosure 11 in No. 53—Translation of
telegram.]
Mother of Feinknopf to
Mr. Francis.
Krakau, January 12,
1885.
Up to this hour my son has not been furloughed.
[Inclosure 12 in No. 53.]
Count Szögyényi to
Mr. Francis, January 13,
1885.
Sir: Referring to your note of yesterday, No.
F. O. 29, the inclosure of which I have the honor to return to you, I
beg to inform you that, having this morning again communicated with the
imperial royal ministry of war, I have received the answer that on
Friday last, 9th instant, a telegraphic message has been sent to the
military authorities at Krakau, ordering them to immediately liberate on
furlough Ciebel Feinknopf.
I have, &c.,
P. S.—I am just informed that the minister of war has to-day
telegraphed to Krakau to inquire whether the order given on Friday
has been executed. No answer has been received up to this hour. As
soon as I receive the answer I shall not fail to transmit it to your
excellency.
[Page 14]
[Inclosure 13 in No. 53.]
Count Szögyényi to
Mr. Francis.
Vienna, January 14,
1885.
Sir: I beg to inform you that, according to a
communication I have just received from the imperial royal ministry of
war, the order given on Friday last to liberate, on furlough, L.
Feinknopf, has been, as I was convinced from the beginning, immediately executed by the military authorities
at Krakau.
I have, &c.,
[Inclosure 14 in No. 53.]
Mr. Francis to
Count Szögyényi.
Legation of the United States,
Vienna, January 20,
1885.
Your Excellency: I have the honor to
acknowledge the receipt of your excellency’s replies under date of
January 13 and January 14, respectively, to my note of the 12th instant
(F. O. 29) in regard to the case of Louis (or Leibel) Feinknopf.
In your excellency’s note of January 13 it is stated that the imperial
royal ministry of war informed your excellency that “a telegraphic
message had been sent to the military authority at Krakau ordering them
immediately to liberate on furlough Leibel Feinknopf,” and in your
excellency’s note of January 14 it is stated that, according to a
communication your excellency had just then received from the imperial
royal ministry of war, the order given on Friday, January 9, was “immediately executed by the military authorities
at Krakau;” and your excellency remarks in this connection, “as I was
convinced from the beginning.”
In regard to the positive statement that Feinknopf was released on
furlough Friday, January 9, which statement was undoubtedly founded upon
assurance to that effect given by the proper military authority at
Krakau, I desire to call the attention of your excellency to the fact
that a telegraphic message from the mother of Feinknopf, dated Krakau,
January 12, 4.45 p.m., which I inclosed in my note of the same date for
your excellency’s observation (since returned to me) declared that up to
that hour her son had not been furloughed. This of itself might not be
accepted as conclusive proof of the fact, as, receiving his furlough, he
might have neglected to inform his mother that he had been released. But
this seemed to me improbable, and I hastened to communicate with
Feinknopf on the subject. I inclose herewith copy of his reply to my
letter of inquiry which, it will be seen, is both categorical and
specific in its statement of the dates of his arrest and committal to
the barracks and his release upon the furlough granted. It would appear
from this communication that, arrested on Thursday, the 8th of January,
he was held and treated as a common soldier until Tuesday, January 13, a
period of five days, and that the telegraphic message sent by the
imperial royal ministry of war to the military authorities at Krakau on
Friday, January 9, was not “immediately”
executed; that is to say, it was not carried into effect at that date,
nor until Tuesday, January 13.
I have deemed it proper to submit this statement to your excellency in
view of the unjustifiable course of the military authorities at Krakau
toward a citizen of the United States, against which I made earnest
protest in my note to your excellency (F. O. 26) of the date of January
10.
And furthermore, I have to repeat with earnest urgency the request that,
upon the evidence which has been presented in this case establishing
under the second article of the treaty of 1870 the exemption of Louis
(or Liebel) Feinknopf from all liabilities to do military service in the
imperial royal army, his furlough be canceled by a certificate of such
exemption, and that his name be erased from the military rolls at Krakau
as owing the service attempted to be exacted from him. No attempt has
been made to refute this evidence; yet after the lapse of nearly three
months since his arrest, during which time he has been subjected to
painful apprehensions, personal inconvenience, pecuniary sacrifice, and
finally to the indignity of forcible impressment into the military
organization at Krakau, where he was held five days under strictest
military discipline, the case is still undecided by the Imperial Royal
Government; the claim to military service he does not owe is not
withdrawn; his situation is simply relieved by a furlough, the latter in
itself implying that the claim upon him is still maintained.
I must, therefore, while acknowledging the spirit of courtesy and justice
with which in repeated interviews your excellency has discussed with me
this question, our views
[Page 15]
and
conclusions apparently involving no differences of opinion, seriously
reiterate the request that the rights of Louis (or Liebel) Feinknopf as
a citizen of the United States, who has violated no law of the Imperial
Royal Government and owes it no military service, shall be fully
recognized, and that he be accorded the unconditional exemption to which
he is entitled from further claim to such service. And in this
connection I may say that delay of action in the case increases
embarrassment, as it seriously interferes with the course of justice
toward a citizen of a friendly power.
I avail myself, &c.,
[Inclosure 15 in No. 53.]
Louis Feinknopf to
Mr. Francis.
Krakau, January 15,
1885.
Sir: Your very kind and pleasing letter of the
14th instant came duly to hand. I am at a loss how to express the thanks
which I owe you. You have really done more for me than a father could do
for his own child, and I can proudly say America and the Americans shall
live forever. My mother did not misinform you. I was not liberated until
Tuesday, January 13. On Monday evening I was yet under strong guard at
the military retreat. I was arrested on Thursday, January 8, and kept
till Tuesday, January 13, and was treated as a common soldier. I can
vouch for the truth and prove it with the papers of my furlough, and I
do sincerely hope that my liberation will soon follow, as I am very
anxious to get away from this country.
With thanks and prayers for your long life, I remain, &c.,
P. S.—My dear mother sends her heartfelt thanks and her best thanks
and good wishes.
[Inclosure 16 in No.
53.—Translation.]
Count Szögyényi to
Mr. Francis.
Vienna, January 22,
1885.
In pursuance of the note of the 10th instant, No. 153, the imperial royal
ministry of foreign affairs has the honor to inform the Hon. John M.
Francis, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United
States of America, that the imperial royal ministry of public defense
has decided that Louis Feinknopf, of Krakau, assigned to the thirteenth
regiment of infantry, Graf. Huyn, on the 23d October, 1884, be
discharged from the military service by virtue of articles 1 and 2 of
the treaty of September 20, 1878, it having been authentically
ascertained after steps had been taken with that end in view by the
honorable North American envoy, that Feinknopf was naturalized in the
United States in 1882, and is therefore, by treaty stipulation, not
subject to military duty in this country.
The necessary orders for carrying out this decision have already been
given to the competent authorities.
The ministry of foreign affairs does not omit at the same time to inclose
herewith to the honorable the North American envoy the naturalization
certificate and the notarial act concerning Feinknopi’s emigration to
America, mentioned in the note of December 16 last, No. 19, with the
information that the other two inclosures of the above mentioned note
have not yet been received from the imperial royal authorities, but that
they have been asked for.
The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to renew assurance of his
profound esteem.
For the minister of foreign
affairs:
SZÖGYÉNYI.
[Inclosure 17 in No. 53.]
Mr. Francis to
Count Szögyényi.
Legation of the United States,
Vienna, February 2,
1885.
Your Excellency: I have the honor to
acknowledge the receipt of your excellency’s esteemed note 1814/7, dated
January 22, 1885, announcing that the imperial royal ministry of public
defense had decided upon the evidence presented in the case of Louis
[Page 16]
Feinknopf, a citizen of the
United States, arrested at Krakau, October 23, 1884, charged with owing
military service to the Imperial Royal Government, that the said
Feinknopf be discharged from such service by virtue of articles 1 and 2
of the treaty of September 20, 1870. And your excellency transmits at
the same time as inclosures the naturalization certificate of Louis
Feinknopf, and accompanying notarial certificate in reference to his
emigration to America.
In regard to the discharge of the said Feinknopf from military service as
mentioned, your excellency observes that “the necessary orders for
carrying out this decision have already been given to the competent
authorities.” For your excellency’s information, I will state that on
the 30th ultimo, applying at the proper office of the military
authorities at Krakau for his discharge certificate, Feinknopf writes me
that in answer to his request it was stated that the order for his
discharge had just been received, and that five days more would elapse
before the certificate would be delivered to him.
Referring to the delay in reaching a decision in this case, in your
excellency’s note 29856/7, dated December 28, 1884, your excellency is
pleased to remark as follows (after stating that objections had been
raised to the discharge of Feinknopf by the imperial royal commander of
the respective army corps, rendering necessary a renewal of
investigations, to which was to be attributed the delay):
“In the mean time the imperial royal statthalter (governor of province)
at Lemberg has been put in possession of Leibel Feinknopf’s
naturalization certificate, deposited here a few days ago by the
honorable envoy of the United States of North America, which document is
likely to be the means of bringing the whole affair to a speedy
decision.” (Translation.)
This averment in the absence of explanation might leave the impression
that until the time mentioned, namely, a few days prior to the 28th of
December, I had failed to furnish the necessary evidence—Feinknopf’s
naturalization certificate—required to secure his discharge from
military service. But the fact is, I presented this certificate for the
information of Baron Pasetti during my first interview on this subject
at the foreign office, which he looked over and returned to me. In an
interview with him on November 7, I again presented for his excellency’s
observation this certificate and other papers as establishing the facts
carefully stated in my note of October 28th, which certificate was again
returned to me. Again, personally delivering to his excellency Count
Szögyényi my note addressed to Baron Pasetti, November 21, I offered for
his (Count Szögyényi’s) observation or use the papers in the case,
including the naturalization certificate referred to, which latter was
returned to me after a hasty glance over the paper. And, as your
excellency will doubtless remember, it was not until December 23 that
your excellency, again receiving the naturalization certificate at my
hands, requested that it should be left with you for the purpose of
facilitating an early conclusion of the whole matter.
I take the liberty of setting forth these facts, your excellency, in no
reproachful sense, but to show that the embarrassing delay in the case
so justly decided was through no neglect or omission on my part to
supply the needed evidence for a prompt decision; and at the same time
it gives me pleasure to bear evidence of the interest always expressed
by your excellency to bring the matter to an early and honorable
conclusion.
I embrace, &c.,
