No. 292.
Mr. Bayard to Mr. von
Alvensleben.
Washington, March 4, 1887.
The undersigned, Secretary of State of the United States, had the honor to receive some time ago the note of Mr. von Alvensleben, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of His Majesty the Emperor of Germany, of the 8th July last, relative to the cases of several naturalized citizens of the United States of German origin who were expelled from Prussia not long after their return on a visit to that country. The note in question, however, while referring to certain cases specifically, contains a general discussion of the rights of sojourn of naturalized citizens of the United States of German origin in their native country, in the form of a reply to the views expressed in two notes of Mr. Pendleton, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States, to the Imperial foreign office, bearing date, respectively, the 10th and 16th of April last.
The views of this Department have already been so fully stated in previous communications to the Imperial Government, and especially in the note of Mr. Pendleton and its inclosures of the 10th of April last, [Page 420] that their further statement or amplification would seem unnecessary, if it were not for the apparent misapprehension, betrayed in the note of Mr. von Alvensleben, of the Imperial Government as to the views of this Department on the subject of the right of expulsion. The esteemed note of Mr. von Alvensleben correctly observes that the United States Government does not dispute the right, which is recognized in international law, of every state to expel from its territory foreigners whose stay in the country is prejudicial to public welfare and order; but at the same time it apparently assumes that the exercise of that right is denied by this Government to Germany in respect to naturalized citizens of the United States of German origin during a period of two years immediately ensuing their return to their native country.
But for this apparent misapprehension of the views of this Department the undersigned would have read with not a little surprise the declaration contained in Mr. von Alvensleben’s note, that the denunciation of the treaty of 1868 would become necessary if the interpretation set forth in Mr. Pendleton’s notes should be accepted as final.
It has not been the purpose of this Department to deny to Germany the right at any time to expel foreigners whose presence may be found to be dangerous to the public safety, but while thus freely admitting the right of expulsion this Department holds that its arbitrary exercise can not be regarded as consistent with existing relations.
It is not understood ever to have been claimed by this Government, and is not claimed by it now, that the clause in the treaty of 1868 in respect to a two years’ residence of naturalized citizens in the country of origin was under all circumstances to be held to be a guaranty of such residence, and that the intention not to return to the country of adoption could not be formed or held to exist at any time before the expiration of that period. It is clearly stated in the fourth article of that treaty that the thing which is to operate as a renunciation of adoptive allegiance is a renewal of residence in the country of origin without an intent to return to the country of adoption. Such intention not to return, it is provided, may be inferred from a two years’ residence. But this is merely a rule of evidence, establishing a prima facie presumption and the intention not to return may be held to exist independently of the consideration whether that presumption has been created in the manner defined by the clause of the treaty in question.
Any other interpretation of the treaty would lead to the manifestly, untenable conclusion, for which the undersigned is unable to find any warrant, that the country of origin can not accept, at any time during the two years immediately succeeding his return thereto, the express declarations and unequivocal acts of a citizen or subject who has been naturalized abroad, as any evidence of his intention with respect to the duration of his stay.
The position, however, of this Department is that there must be such declarations or such acts, in addition to the mere fact of return to the country of origin, in order to create or justify the conclusion that naturalization has been renounced; and that this question, which arises under a mutual convention and is of equal concern to both parties, is one for mutual consideration and discussion and concurrent decision.
In respect to the question of expulsion, it is maintained that, although it is not a question arising under the treaty, it is due to comity, as well as to the existence of the treaty, that reasonable grounds for expulsion should exist and be made known. The undersigned is unable to perceive the force of the observations contained in Mr. von Alvensleben’s note, that the necessity and appropriateness of the course of the Imperial [Page 421] Government can be appreciated only from the standpoint of the internal policy of the Empire, if, as seems to be the case, it is intended to infer that the course of the Imperial Government in regard to expelling foreigners can not be made a ground for inquiry or complaint by the Government of such foreigners.
The undersigned is unable to assent to this proposition; especially in view of the fact that, as the note of Mr. von Alvensleben is understood, it admits that the Imperial Government regards as a sufficient cause for expulsion the fact that exemption from military service has been required by emigration and naturalization in the United States. The basis of the treaty of 1868 is understood to have been the mutual acknowledgment by the contracting parties of the right of self-expatriation, upon compliance with the conditions therein agreed upon and defined. Expatriation thus accomplished was to be mutually and equally acknowledged by both contracting parties, who covenanted to treat the naturalized citizens of each other on the same footing as native-born citizens. There was no limitation as to the age at which persons might emigrate from either country and be naturalized in the other. It is, however, clear that to apply the fact that exemption from military service has resulted from emigration and naturalization abroad as a sufficient ground for expulsion, would be to destroy as to persons of a certain age the right of orderly return to and law-abiding sojourn in the country of origin, which is stipulated in the treaty of 1868 and may, within its plain meaning, be continued for more than two years; and in addition to creating a discrimination not contemplated by the treaty, would subject its construction wholly to the changing views and regulations of one of the contracting parties.
There is no disposition on the part of this Government to question the right of the Imperial Government to expel any foreigner who violates the laws or the policy of the Empire, or whose misconduct may cause his presence to be productive of disorder.
In this respect all citizens of the United States, whether native or naturalized, are held to the same accountability and stand on the same footing. But to concede that the fact of being a naturalized citizen of the United States, with the rights and exemptions incident to such citizenship, may, irrespective of offense by word or deed or general course of misconduct, be held of itself as to a certain class of citizens of the United States a sole and sufficient ground for expulsion, would be equivalent to a deprivation of all right of sojourn and peaceable residence in the German Empire except under the most precarious and arbitrary limitations.
The undersigned avails himself of this occasion, etc.,