Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress, With the Annual Message of the President, December 3, 1889

Mr. Coleman to Mr. Blaine.

Legation of the United States,
Berlin, September 16, 1889. (Received September 28.)

No. 818.]

Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith a report which I have prepared of the so-called “military cases” requiring the intervention of this legation with the German Government, which have been decided between the date, October 11, 1888, of the last report of this character from the legation and the date of this dispatch. The cases reported herewith are designated with the numbers 188, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, and 205, being sixteen in all, ten of them relating to fines, six to threatened expulsions. All of the former class, with the exception of one, and all of the latter with the exception of two, have been “decided favorably, the relief sought by the applicants having been granted. The exception in the first-named class, No. 188, in which only a moiety of the fine imposed has been remitted, is a case occurring in Alsace-Lorraine territory, with respect to which, according to the view advanced by this Government, none of our treaties regulating nationality, concluded with the various German states in 1868, have application. This case has been specially reported with the legation’s dispatch, No. 720, of January 3, 1889, and the question of the principle involved has been heretofore discussed in a voluminous correspondence to be found on the files of the Department of State. The two exceptions in the second-named class, Nos. 198 and 199, relate to proceedings looking to the expulsion from the territory of Hamburg of native American citizens residing with their parents of German birth for periods of many years in that city without manifesting any definite intention of ever returning to the United States to perform the duties of citizenship there. In the one case, No. 198, the applicant for whom the legation intervened ultimately sought and obtained naturalization in Hamburg, and is now residing there as a German subject; in the other, No. 199, the applicant, when his continued residence in that city became impossible, simply removed to Bremen, where he now resides with his family.

The question of the expulsion of American citizens from this country, and of the principle upon which such action is based, heretofore stated by the German Government to be the inherent right of a state to expel foreigners from its territory when its interests and the public welfare dictate such course, has been also discussed at length in correspondence on the files of the Department, and especially in the “military case” report from this legation transmitted with dispatch No. 534, of November 8, 1887.

Recurring to the subject of military fines, I will briefly remark in conclusion that such fines are imposed, not because of the acquisition of American citizenship by the persons concerned, but in the routine of military business by judicial proceedings in contumaciam upon all absentees, not known to be exempt for valid reasons, upon their attainment of the age when they are required to enter upon the performance of military duty, the fact of the acquisition of American citizenship being first brought to the attention of the authorities upon the return of the naturalized American citizen to his native place in Germany.

I have, etc.,

Chapman Coleman.

[Inclosure in No. 818.]

“military case” report.

• 188. John Goldschmidt—Born at Leinbach, Alsace, November 16, 1857; emigrated in November, 1873, at the age of sixteen years, to the United States where he had ever since remained; naturalized March 10, 1887. The attention of the legation was first called to this case by Goldschmidt in a communication dated May 14, 1888 received the 30th of that month and answered on the same day, with a request for fuller information, to be supplied by filling in a “military case” form, inclosed for the purpose. Goldschmidt was at the same time informed that it was doubtful whether the removal of the attachment to secure a fine amounting, inclusive of. costs, to 1,213.29 marks, imposed on him for alleged violation of military duty by a judgment of the land court at Mülhausen, dated January 11, 1879, placed on an inheritance accruing to him from his parents at Taun, in Alsace, could be obtained, as the German Government contended, in opposition to the American view, that none of the various naturalization treaties with the German states, which secure immunity from such acts as he complained of, applied to Alsace-Lorraine. After a lengthy correspondence, made necessary by Goldschmidt’s confused statements, with him and his brother-in-law, residing at Taun, the legation was at length, on the 7th of August following, placed in possession of the necessary facts and evidence of his citizenship, and on the same day appealed to the foreign office in Gold Schmidt’s behalf, inclosing with its note of intervention his certificate of naturalization, submitting his statements and complaint, and requesting that the attachment be removed, if upon investigation the facts should be found to be correctly stated. On the same day the legation notified Goldschmidt of the action taken in his behalf. In an answering note dated January 2, 1889, and received on the following day, the foreign office informed the legation that, in consequence of the intervention which had been made, one-half of the fine imposed had been remitted, assigning no reason for the non remission of the entire amount other than that such course could not be recommended under existing circumstances. On the same day the legation notified Goldschmidt of the decision reached, and with dispatch No. 720, of January 3, 1889, fully reported the case to the Department Goldschmidt thereafter, under date of February 2 following, expressed his thanks to the legation for the action taken in his behalf.
• 189. Henry F. Jessen.—(This case has been heretofore reported in annual report of military cases with dispatch No. 681, of October 11, 1888.)
• 190. Valentine Goetz.—Born at Gadern, Grand Duchy of Hesse, October 29, 1862. emigrated in November, 1880, to the United States; naturalized October 15, 1886. In a letter dated August 7, 1888, received on the following day, Goetz, writing from Frankfort-on-the-Main, informed the legation that while sojourning at Gadern a few days before he had been threatened with arrest for non-performance of military duty in Germany. He asked whether the evidence of his American citizenship which he inclosed would protect him from such arrest. The Legation answered on the same day, informing him that the naturalization treaty of 1868, of which a copy was inclosed with the advice to call the attention of the authorities to its provisions in case further threats were made, granted him immunity from arrest or other penalties on account of his non-performance of military service in Germany. On the 23d of August a letter was received from the United States consul-general at Frankfort-on-the-Main, conveying the following information respecting this case, which the legation submitted on the same day in a note of intervention addressed to the foreign office: “Having recently returned to his native country on a brief visit for the purpose of transacting some business for his mother residing at Gadern, he had, on August 9, been compelled under threat of imprisonment to pay a fine, amounting with costs to 211.10 marks, for alleged violation of military duty, under a judgment pronounced by the land court at Darmstadt, under date of July 28, 1885. The fine had, according to Goetz’s statements, been exacted of him by the authorities with a full knowledge of the facts, their attention having been previously invited to the provisions of the treaty regulating nationality, concluded between the United States and the Grand Duchy of Hesse on August 1, 1868; Goetz having at the same time submitted to them his certificate of naturalization, accompanied by a translation which he had prepared for the purpose of preventing any misunderstanding of the contents of that document.” The legation inclosed the evidence of Goetz’ citizenship, together with the receipt for the fine, and requested in conclusion that the amount of the same should he returned to him if the essential facts in the case should upon investigation be found to be accurately stated. On the same day the legation informed Goetz, through the consulate-general at Frankfort-on-the-Main, of the action taken in his behalf. In an answering note, dated November 10 following, the foreign office informed the legation that the return to Goetz of the entire amount of the fine and costs had been directed. On the same day the legation notified Goetz, who had since returned to the United States, through the consulate-general, of the favorable decision reached in his case, returning his papers to him at the same time. Nothing has since been heard from Goetz.
• 191. Marcus Goldschmidt.—Born at Fuerfeld, Rhine, Hesse, April 22, 1863; emigrated in October, 1882, to the United States; naturalized November 22, 1887. In a communication, without date, received on July 9, 1888, Goldschmidt inquired of the legation, writing from Paris, whether he could safely visit his native country, and was informed on the same day that he was, pursuant to treaty provisions, entitled under the circumstances stated by him to visit Germany without liability to arrest or punishment for emigrating or avoiding military service or to being compelled to perform such service in that country. Having in the mean time come to his native place, Goldschmidt informed the legation in a letter dated the 19th, received the 21st of that month, that it was rumored he was to be arrested on account of his visit. He was on the same day furnished by the legation with a copy of the treaty securing him immunity from punishment therefor. On the 21st of August following, in a communication dated the 16th of that month, Goldschmidt informed the legation that he had under protest paid a military fine demanded of him by the local authorities, requesting that its recovery be procured. On the same day the legation transmitted to him a “military case” form, to be filled in and returned together with the evidence of his American citizenship. Having on the 28th, in a communication dated the 27th of August, received the necessary information, the legation on the same day addressed a note of intervention to the foreign office in behalf of Goldschmidt, inclosing his certificate of naturalization, and submitting the following complaint and further facts in his case: Goldschmidt had returned on the 13th of July, 1888, to Fuerfeld from the United States on a brief visit to his parents, with the intention of going back to his adopted country in September following, when he was compelled, on the 10th of August, to pay a fine of 213.07 marks under a judgment pronounced against him for evasion of military duty by the grand ducal land court at Mayence, under date of March 3, 1886, notwithstanding his appeal to his American citizenship, and the provisions of the naturalization treaty concluded between the United States and the Grand Duchy of Hesse and bei Rhein, under date of August 1, 1868. The return of the amount of the fine was requested in the event of the facts being found upon investigation to be correctly stated. Goldschmidt was on the same day informed of the action taken in his behalf, and requested to furnish his American address in case he returned home, in order that the legation mighty notify him of the result of the intervention and return his papers. With this request he complied. In an answering note dated November 10 following, received on the 12th of that month, the foreign office informed the legation that the repayment of the fine had been directed. Goldschmidt was immediately made acquainted with the fact, and his certificate of naturalization returned to him. In a communication received from him, from his home in the United States, to which he had in the mean time returned, he expressed his thanks to the legation.
• 192. George G. Mueller.—Born at Ovelgrüne, Grand Duchy of Oldenburg, June 5, 1860; emigrated at the age of nineteen, in August, 1879, to the United States; naturalized May 21, 1886. Mueller having called in person to present his case on November 3, 1888, the legation on the same day addressed a note to the foreign office in his behalf, submitting the following complaint and further statements made by him, together with the evidence of his American citizenship: Mueller returned on a visit to his native place on the 23d of October, 1888, ascertaining on his arrival that his brother, who resided there, and to whom he had intrusted the management of his affairs, had paid over to the German Government authorities, out of an inheritance accruing to him, the sum of 1,076.96 marks, being the amount of a fine, with costs, imposed on him for alleged evasion of military duty in Germany. The repayment of the fine was requested in the event of the facts being found upon investigation to be correctly stated. In an answering note received on the 8th of January following, and dated the preceding day, the foreign office informed the legation that its request had been complied with. This result was at once communicated to Mueller, who expressed his thanks for the recovery of the fine which he had given up as a loss, in a letter to the legation written from Buenos Ayres under date of March 31, 1889.
• 193. George Fink, alias Finkbeiner.—Born at Breitun’s, Wurtemberg, May 20, 1867; emigrated at the age of sixteen years, in August, 1883, to the United States; naturalized ‘under the name of George Fink September 17, 1888, under date of September 24, 1888. Fink’s agent in New York brought this case to the notice of the legation, inclosing the evidence of the citizenship of the latter. He was informed by the legation, in a communication dated October 8 following, that upon receipt of the necessary statement of facts called for in the inclosed “military-case” form, proper action would be taken in Fink’s behalf. The necessary information having been received oil the 5th of November following in a communication from Fink dated the 20th of the preceding month, the legation on the same day addressed a note of intervention to the foreign office, inclosing the certificate of naturalization and stating his complaint and the further facts as follows: Fink still resided in the United States, never having returned to Germany. On August 26, 1888, his father, Jacob Finkbeiner, residing at Mittelthall, in Wurtemberg, informed him by letter that the authorities at that place had imposed a fine on him amounting to about 700 marks and had attached an inheritance accruing to him to secure the payment of the same. The removal of the attachment was requested in case the facts should be found to be correctly stated. On the following day the legation notified Fink, through his agent, of the action taken in his behalf. In an answering note, dated May 2, 1889, the foreign office informed the legation that the attachment had been removed and the fine remitted. The legation at once informed Fink, from whom nothing has since been heard, of this satisfactory result of its action.
• 194. Siegfried Schachne.—Born at Grünberg, Silesia, January 15, 1860, emigrated at the age of fourteen, in March, 1874, to the United States; naturalized October 28, 1881. Schachne brought his case to the attention of the, legation in a communication from New York, dated September 29, 1888, received on the 13th of the following, month, which the legation answered two days thereafter, asking that the inclosed “military case” form be filled in with the necessary information and returned here together with the evidence of his American nationality. This having been done with a letter from Schachne dated October 26, received on the 5th of November following, the legation on the 7th of the latter month addressed a note to the foreign office in his behalf, inclosing at the same time his certificate of naturalization, and submitting his complaint and the following further facts: In July, 1888, Schachne returned to his native land on a visit, intending to remain there only two months, and went back to the United States on the 2d of September following. While in Berlin during that visit he was notified by the authorities that he must pay a fine amounting, with costs, to 245 marks for alleged evasion of military duty. Schachne informed the official who called on him several times that he was an American citizen and, under treaty stipulations, not liable to any punishment for such act. At the time of his departure for the United States, after the completion of his visit, the matter seemed to have been dropped by the authorities at Berlin, but thereafter, and soon after his departure, his family residing at that city were informed that further efforts to collect the fine had been officially made, with insistance on its payment. The remission of the fine was requested in the event of the facts being found, after investigation, to be as stated. In an answering note dated March 25 following, and received on the 27th of that month, the foreign office informed the legation that the fine in this ease had been remitted as requested. On the latter date the result of intervention was communicated to Schachne, from whom nothing has since been heard.
• 195. Hans P. P. Grosbol.—Born at Osterlinnet, near Gramm, in Schleswig-Holstein, emigrated, with Government permit, in the year 1873 to the United States, where he was naturalized, residing there for seven years. The attention of the legation was brought to this case by Grosbol, under date of November 15, 1888. In an ensuing communication written on the 17th of that month, the day of the receipt of his letter, the legation, although provided with but meagre facts, the case being urgent, presented the same to the foreign office. On the same day it notified Grosbol that it had done so, and at the same time, with dispatch No. 694, reported the case to the Department. The further facts and complaint thus submitted to the foreign office were as follows: Grosbol had returned some three weeks before, with his family, to his native place with the intention of paying a visit of three months to his parents and relatives residing there, when, on the 13th of November, 1888, the local authorities notified him that he must leave his native place within a week. His naturalization appeared to be of an entirely bona fide character; he had resided at his native place a few weeks only, desired to remain there until the middle of January following; the condition of his child’s health was alleged to be such that a return voyage would at the present time be impracticable. The legation expressed the hope that Grosbol’s request would be complied with, the facts being upon investigation found to be as stated, and that in view of the urgency of the case which prevented the legation from submitting as full a statement of the facts as it desired, the time fixed for Grosbol’s departure being but three days distant, it was hoped that proceedings against him might be suspended before that date. The legation submitted with its note Grosbol’s passport only, his certificate of naturalization being in his own keeping at his native place. In an answering note, dated November 21, received the following day, the foreign office notified the legation that action against Grosbol had been suspended as requested, and on the 23d of that month the legation addressed a communication to him, and dispatch No. 697 to the Department, conveying that intelligence. With instruction No. 392, of December 12 following, the Department acknowledged the receipt of the above-mentioned dispatch. On January 31 following, a further note, dated the 29th of that month, was received from the foreign office, which informed the legation that the facts as presented by the legation had not been known to the authorities who notified him that he must leave, and had not been disclosed by him at the time his statements were taken down by them. In view of the facts submitted by the legation his wishes as to a further sojourn in Prussia would be complied with. On the day of the receipt of this note from the foreign office the legation reported the result of its intervention to Grosbol, and to the Department with dispatch No. 736, the receipt of which was acknowledged with instruction No. 420, of February 20, 1889. The legation has heard nothing further from Grosbol since its intervention in his behalf.
• 196. Louis B. Greenberg.—Born at Schrimm, in the province of Posen, Prussia, October 2, 1866; emigrated in May, 1882, to the United States; naturalized July 2, 1888. Greenberg having, under date of November 25, 1888, submitted his case, the legation, on the 26th of that month, the day of its receipt, addressed a note to the foreign office in his behalf, stating the further facts and his complaint as follows: Greenberg returned to Germany on a visit to his parents and other relatives about the 1st day of August, 1888, and had since continued to sojourn with them at Schrimm, or at Berlin, demeaning himself, as he alleged, in an entirely peaceable, law-abiding manner. On the 24th of November following he was informed by the police authorities of Berlin that he must leave Prussia within fourteen days. Greenberg expressed the wish to remain in Prussia from four to six weeks longer when, his visit having been completed, he would return to the United States. The legation inclosed Greenberg’s certificate of naturalization, and requested that his wish be complied with in case the facts were found to be as stated. On the same day the legation informed Greenberg of the action taken in his case, and on the following day reported the same to the Department with dispatch No. 700. After some intermediate correspondence between the legation and Greenberg relative to the time by which a decision would probably be reached in his case, the foreign office, in an answering note, dated December 14 following, and received on the 15th of that month, informed the legation that Greenberg’s wish had, in consequence of the intervention made in his behalf, been complied with. On the same day the legation transmitted this intelligence to Greenberg, and with dispatch No. 708 to the Department. With instruction No. 399, of January 5 following, received on the 25th of that month, the Department expressed its satisfaction with the decision reached. Since the notification to him of that decision nothing further has been heard of Greenberg.
• 197. Frederick Gastiger.—Born at Walberg, near Ittenheim, Bavaria, February 25, 1858, emigrated in December, 1881, to the United States, naturalized January 27, 1887. The attention of this legation was first brought to this case by a communication from Gastiger, dated October 11, received the 13th of that month. After a voluminous intermediate correspondence between him and the legation, made necessary by his failure to state clearly what had taken place, the legation was enabled, by a communication received from Gastiger on the 29th of November, following, to address a note to the foreign office in his behalf, presenting his complaint and the further facts in the case, as follows; About the 1st September, 1888, Gastiger returned on a visit to his native country, making Unterleinleiter, Bavaria, his place of sojourn for such purpose. On the 7th of October following, the local authorities compelled him to pay a fine of 60 marks for unallowed emigration. The evidence of Gastiger’s American citizenship was inclosed, with the request that the repayment of the amount of the fine be caused if the facts should upon investigation be found to be as stated. On the same day the legation notified Gastiger of the action taken in his behalf. In an answering note, dated February 21, received the following day, the foreign office informed the legation that the repayment of the fine had been ordered. On the same day this intelligence and his certificate of naturalization were transmitted by the legation to Gastiger, from whom nothing further has been heard.
• 198. Edmund G. H. Thiele.—This case was brought to the notice of the legation by a communication received from the American consulate at Hamburg, where Thiele was residing. After some intermediate correspondence, necessary to secure full information in the case, the legation was enabled on the 10th of December, 1888, to address a note in his behalf to the foreign office, in which the following facts and complaint as stated by Thiele were submitted. Thiele, the son of a naturalized American citizen was horn at New York City on January 28, 1864. In the year 1869 the father returned with his family, including his son Edmund, to Altona, his former home (a suburb of Hamburg), where he had in the mean time inherited real estate, intending to return to America after the accomplishment of certain tedious formalities connected with that inheritance, which required much more time than he had anticipated. His return was, however, prevented by his death, which ensued on September 8, 1872. Thiele’s mother had since continued to reside at Altona, but the son, on the attainment of his seventeenth year, in 1881, returned to the United States, with the purpose of remaining there permanently. Prompted, however, by the anxiety of his mother to have her son near her in case of an emergency, he returned in 1884 to Altona, where he had since resided. On the 4th of the current month Thiele was summoned before the police authorities of Hamburg, and offered the alternative of leaving the city or applying for German naturalization. Upon declining to renounce his native allegiance he was informed that he must leave Hamburg within eight days. Thiele had never owed allegiance to Germany, and could not, therefore, be considered to have sought in any way to avoid the duties, whether of a military or other character, which that allegiance entails, and his conduct having been as alleged law-abiding, it was hoped the withdrawal of the order complained of would be effected, if the facts were upon investigation found to be as stated. In proof of Thiele’s American nationality, his certificate of baptism and the certificate of naturalization of his father were inclosed, with the request for their ultimate return.
• On the same day the legation informed the consulate at Hamburg that intervention had been made, and reported the case to the Department with dispatch No. 707. On the 19th of December, in a note of the same date, the foreign office informed the legation that the Senate of Hamburg had directed that a new investigation of Thiele’s case be made, and that for the time being his further sojourn would be permitted. This intelligence was on the same day transmitted to the consulate at Hamburg, and to the Department with dispatch No. 711. On the 12th of February following instruction No. 409, of the 31st of January preceding, was received, expressing approval of the action-of the legation in the case, satisfaction with the suspension of the proceedings taken against Thiele, the opinion that he was not in Germany animo manendi, and the expectation that the case would be equitably treated. After some intermediate correspondence with the consulate at Hamburg touching Thiele’s desire to have his papers returned to him, which could not then be complied with, those documents being still in the possession of the foreign office, the latter, with a note dated February 28, received on the 2d of March following, informed the legation that investigation of the case had shown that Thiele had the intention to settle permanently in Hamburg as a man of business, but without acquiring naturalization there, it being his purpose to wait to see whether the cigar business which he contemplated establishing there on his own account prospered, and whether he could be compelled to perform German military service. Under these circumstances the foreign office regarded the assumption as justified that Thiele, who, it is true, was by birth an American citizen, but was of German origin, whose mother was still living at Altona, and whose life relations all connected him with Germany, was availing himself of his American citizenship solely for the purpose of withdrawing himself from the performance of German military service. The Senate of Hamburg had not, therefore, considered the repeal of the order of expulsion practicable. It had, however, in view of the intervention made in his behalf, recommended to the appropriate police authority to accord to him a further sojourn of a short period at Hamburg. On the day of the receipt of this note from the foreign office the legation informed Thiele of its contents through the consulate at Hamburg, and fully reported the same to the Department with dispatch No. 747. In an answering instruction, No. 429, of March 20, 1889, received on April 3 following, the Department directed the legation to continue to watch the case and to report the time of Thiele’s departure, and whether he returned to the United States. In compliance with this direction the legation has ascertained that Thiele, on the 2d day of September, 1889, informed our consulate at Hamburg that he had a few days before acquired German allegiance.
• 199. Henry Clay Schmidt.—Native citizen of the United States Schmidt addressed to the legation a communication dated December 17, and received December 19, 1888, inclosing the evidence of his American citizenship and furnishing such facts in his case that the legation was enabled to intervene in his behalf on the last-mentioned date, submitting to the foreign office the following statements and complaint: Schmidt was born at New York City on May 21, 1857, and came to Germany on a visit in the year 1870 with his father, Guido Schmidt, a native of the city of Hanover, Germany, who had been naturalized as a citizen of the United States, at New York City on January 9, 1857. The father, who had returned to America in 1874, had, it was understood, since died. The son, who had been residing in the city of Hamburg for the past ten years for business purposes, and who had recently contemplated the establishment there of commercial relations with the house of his brother, doing business in New York, had been ordered by the authorities of Hamburg to leave that city by the 22d of December, no reason having been assigned for such action. Schmidt informed the legation that he was living with his family in rented apartments, contracted for until May 1, 1889, and that to be compelled to leave Hamburg before that time would expose him to very serious inconvenience and loss. As far as appeared Schmidt, a gentleman of good standing, means, and credit, had demeaned himself during his stay in Hamburg in an entirely peaceful and law-abiding manner. In conclusion the legation requested that the foreign office would kindly use its mediation to the end that the order issued against Schmidt be withdrawn, and he allowed to enjoy at Hamburg the hospitality and commercial privileges so freely accorded to citizens and merchants of that state throughout the United States. On the same day the legation informed Schmidt that it had intervened in his behalf and reported the case to the Department with dispatch No. 712. In a note dated December 25, received on the following day, the foreign office informed the legation that, in consequence of its intervention, further sojourn at Hamburg had been granted to Schmidt, adding that a further communication in the case would be made after the completion of the full investigation that was being made. On the same day the legation transmitted this intelligence to Schmidt, and to the Department with dispatch No. 715. Under date of January 18 following, in a communication received on the 19th of that month, Schmidt’s agent at Hamburg expressed his thanks for the legation’s action in Schmidt’s behalf and its result, and with instruction No. 405, of January 16, received on the 5th of February following, the Department expressed its satisfaction with the result thus far reached. In a further note, dated January 19, received on the 21st of that month, the foreign office informed the legation that the expulsion of Schmidt had been decreed by the Hamburg police because of his irregular life and his inability to pay his numerous debts, and that the Senate of that city had not under those circumstances considered it feasible to wholly revoke the order of expulsion. It had, however, in consideration of the intervention that had taken place, directed the appropriate police authority to desist from carrying out the expulsion until the month of May following. On the day of the receipt of the above-mentioned note the legation transmitted this intelligence to Schmidt, through his agent at Hamburg, and reported the same to the Department with dispatch No. 730. Thereafter, under date of the 22d of January, Schmidt’s agent expressed his thanks for the legation’s action, and with instruction No. 413 of February 8 following, received on the 23d of that month, the Department acknowledged the receipt of the dispatch from the legation last referred to.
• Upon recent inquiry at our consulate at Hamburg the legation has learned that Schmidt has changed his place of residence from Hamburg to Bremen, where he resides with his mother.
• 200. Heinrich G. Lippold.—Born at Grossfalka, Saxony, February 10, 1860; emigrated to the United States Septembers 5, 1876; naturalized March 20, 1882. In a communication dated November 24, 1888, but not received until the 17th of December following, Lippold brought his case to the attention of the legation. Under the last-named date the legation replied, inclosing a “military ease” form to be filled in with full facts, and returned. This having been done in a communication dated the 24th and recived on the 28th of December, the legation on the last-mentioned date addressed a note in behalf of Lippold to the foreign office, submitting the following further facts and his complaint: After the uninterrupted residence in the United States since his immigration, Lippold returned, on the 9th of November, 1888, to Germany, on a visit, learning on his arrival that his father had, on the 18th of July of that year, been compelled to pay a fine of 250 marks out of a maternal inheritance accruing to his son, to satisfy a fine imposed on the latter by the Hoy a I Amts Court at Weida, Saxony, for avoidance of military duty in his native country. The evidence of Lippold’s American citizenship was inclosed, with the request that the fine be repaid if the facts were found to be as stated. On the same day the legation informed Lippold that intervention had been made. In an answering note, dated April 27, and received on the following day, the foreign office informed the legation that the fine complained of had been remitted, and its repayment ordered. On the same day the legation transmitted this intelligence, at the same time returning his certificates of naturalization to Lippold, who thereafter, in a communication dated the 1st, and received June 3 following, expressed his thanks to the legation for its action in his behalf.
• 201. Nicholas Peters, alias Nickels Petersen.—Peters brought his case to the notice of the legation in an undated communication received on February 11, 1889. Although the facts presented were meagre, the legation, in view of the urgency of the case, intervened on the same day, addressing a note to the foreign office, in which the following complaint and further statements were submitted: Peters, now thirty-four years of age, a native of the Island of Föhr (Schleswig-Holstein), was naturalized in the United States in 1876, presumably after the requisite length of residence there, as an American passport, which was inclosed, was issued to him by the Department of State on the 31st of October, 1888. His certificate of naturalization was, it was supposed, in his possession at Oevenum, Island of Föhr, where he was residing with his wife, and where he owned a house and real estate. It appeared that Peters had paid repeated visits to his native country, and that his wife, a native of Prussia, who had never been in the United States, had finally refused to accompany him there, and it was not clear that Peters had not installed himself on the property he owned at Oevenum with the purpose of residing there permanently. It also appeared that he had suffered an imprisonment of four days at that place for an offense of the character of which he had not informed the legation. On the 10th of August, Peters, for reasons unknown to the legation, was ordered by the authorities to leave the country by the 15th of that month. While recognizing the fact that, in view of all the known circumstances, the case of Peters seemed but little meritorious, the legation nevertheless expressed the hope that the order referred to might be revoked in compliance with his wish, and he be allowed to continue to sojourn at Oevenum for the brief period intervening between the 15th of the current month and the 1st of April following, in order that an opportunity might be afforded him of disposing of his property, and attending to other important business matters before his departure for the United States. In conclusion, regret was expressed that the legation had not, in consequence of the circumstances that the order served on Peters was intended to take effect in a few days, been able to secure full information respecting the case. On the 14th of February the legation informed Peters of the action taken in his behalf, and on the 16th of that month reported the case to the Department with dispatch No. 741. In an answering note, dated the 29th of March following, the foreign office informed the legation that Peters’ wish for a further sojourn at his native place had been complied with, and on the same day intelligence of this decision was transmitted to Peters, and reported to the Department with dispatch No. 759. Instruction from the Department, No. 437, of April 16, received on the 1st of May following, expressed satisfaction with this decision. Nothing has been heard at the legation from Peters since the day on which he called its attention to his case.
• 202. Max Reese (otherwise Ries).—Born in the Province of Posen, Prussia, in the year—, emigrated at the age of sixteen years to the United States; naturalized September 14, 1888, changing the spelling of his name from Ries to Reese. The facts in this case were received in a communication from Reese (dated the 1st) on the 16th of February, 1889, and were, in addition to those above stated, on the same day submitted with his complaint to the foreign office, as follows: Reese, who had never visited his native country since his naturalization, had been summoned by the royal land court at Gnesen to appear on the 7th of March next, to show cause for absenting himself from military duty. His certificate of naturalization as a citizen of the United States was inclosed, with the request that if the facts should, upon investigation, be found to be as stated, the necessary steps should be taken to prevent any judgment being entered by the court at Gnesen on account of his non-performance of military service in Germany. On the same day the legation notified Reese of the action taken in his behalf. In an answering note dated April 1, and received on the 3d of that month, the foreign office informed the legation that the penal measures instituted against Reese for violation of military duty had been discontinued, by a decision dated the 14th of March, 1889, of the court above referred to. This intelligence was on the day after its receipt transmitted to Reese.
• 203. Falle H. Skow.—Born at Beck, Schleswig-Holstein, Prussia, November 7, 1855; emigrated on August 1, 1872, at the age of sixteen and one-half years, to the United States, provided with a discharge from Prussian allegiance; naturalized October 4, 1877. Skow called attention to his case in a letter dated the 12th and received on 16th of February, 1889, the legation answering on the latter date with a request for fuller information called for in the “military case “form which was inclosed. On the 22d of that month, with a communication dated the previous day, this information was furnished, enabling the legation to address to the foreign office on the same day a note of intervention in Skow’s behalf, in which his complaint and the further facts in the case were stated as follows: Returning to his native country on a visit, Skow arrived at Beck on January 12 preceding. One month thereafter, on the 12th of the current month, he was notified by the “Hardesvogt,” at Hardersleben, that the Royal Government at Schleswig had directed that he must leave Prussia by the 1st of March next, no reason being assigned for such order. Skow had informed the legation that the sole purpose of his return to his native country was the necessity of transacting important business connected with his father’s estate, which could not well be concluded before the 15th of April following, at which time he would be quite prepared to return to the United States. The legation inclosed the evidence of his American nationality, and expressed the hope that his request would be complied with. On the same day the legation informed Skow that it had intervened and reported the case to the Department with dispatch No. 704. In a communication from Skow, dated the 9th of March following, and received on the 12th of that month, he informed the legation that the local authorites at Beck had notified him that his request would be complied with, which intelligence was confirmed by the foreign office in an answering note dated the 28th and received on the 29th of March. On the same day the legation formally transmitted this intelligence to Skow, and reported, with dispatch No. 758, the decision reached to the Department which, with instruction No. 437, dated April 17, received May 1st following, expressed gratification at the result of intervention in this case. Nothing further has been heard of Skow.
• 204. Hermann Abraham.—(Case of military fine, unfinished.)
• 205. Nicholas Bodenschatz.—This case, as No. 148, will be found heretofore reported in Annual Military Cases, with dispatch No. 534, of November 8, 1887. Bodenschatz had been informed that it would only be necessary for him to produce before the local authorities the evidence of his American citizenship in order to procure the return of the fine he had been compelled to pay for alleged violation of military duty in Germany. On June 12, 1889, the legation learned, from instruction No. 444, dated the 28th of the preceding month, that Bodenschatz had not yet adopted such course, and was directed to transmit Bodenschatz’ inclosed certificate of naturalization to the foreign office with a request for repayment of the fine.

This the legation did under date of the 17th of that month, and was informed in an answering note, dated the 16th and received on the 17th of August following, that in compliance with its request the fine in question had been repaid to Bodenschatz’ father. On the same day the result was reported, with the return of the evidence of his citizenship, to the Department with dispatch No. 807.