Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress, With the Annual Message of the President, December 1, 1890

Mr. Grant to Mr. Blaine.

Legation of the United States,
Vienna, March 11, 1890. (Received March 31.)

No. 67.]

Sir: I have the honor to inclose herewith for your information a copy of a translation of a note which I have just received from Baron Pasetti, chief of section at the imperial and royal ministry of foreign affairs, which communication is in reply to a note addressed to Count Kalnoky by me, in compliance with your letter of instructions No. 25, under date of October 8, 1889, in reference to the expulsion from this empire of Hugo Klamer, a naturalized American citizen of Austrian birth. My note to Count Kalnoky was in spirit and language strictly in accordance with your instructions.

The only points brought out by this note from Baron Pasetti, which have not already been the subject of correspondence, and of which the State Department has not already been fully advised, are—

• First. The intimation on the part of Baron Pasetti that a native of Austria or Hungary, who by emigration has become a citizen of the United States and afterwards returns to this monarchy, occupies so enviable a position that he fears that the example might be followed by others.
• Second. The intimation that, in consequence of the framing of the “imperial military law” No. 153, of October 2, 1882, the authorities here now view or interpret the treaty of September 20, 1870, from a standpoint different from that taken by the United States Government. It is assumed that both governments were in accord as to the interpretation of this treaty until after October 2, 1882.
• Third. The statement that “a change in the situation can only take place when the provisions of the treaty of 1870 are revised,” and, further on, “the imperial royal minister of foreign affairs intends to revert once more to the principles involved in this question,” all of which, it is presumed means that it is the intention of the imperial royal minister of foreign affairs to submit to the United States Government propositions for the amendment of the treaty of September 20, 1870. If the United States Government is willing to admit the present interpretation given to the treaty of September 20, 1870, by the Austrian authorities, then it is impossible to see why the imperial authorities should desire any change to be made in the provisions of the treaty. It might also seem useless to amend the provisions of a treaty when the officers of one of the nations concerned claim the right to change the interpretation of the treaty whenever their Government finds it convenient to make a new law. It seems not to have occurred to the baron that the authorities at Washington may refuse to submit to the changes made by the Austrian authorities in the interpretation of this treaty, or that the Government at Washington might refuse to negotiate for an amendment, upon the ground that there were cases pending which the American Government considered violations of the treaty on the part of the Austrian Government.

In awaiting, Mr. Secretary, your further instructions,

I have, etc.,

F. D. Grant.

[Inclosure in No. 67.—Translation.]

Baron Pasetti to Mr. Grant.

Vienna, March 5, 1890.

The honorable envoy of the United States of America, Col. Frederick D. Grant, was pleased to revert to the expulsion of Hugo Klamer in his esteemed note of November 12 last, No. 23, and to ask for information relative to the charges preferred against him by the director of police of this city.

The ministry of foreign affairs has accordingly reexamined the records relating to Klamer’s expulsion, and has come to the conclusion that the proceeding adopted at the time by the authorities was correct and lawful. The expulsion took place in conformity with article 2, section 5, of the law of June 27, 1871, No. 88, because his stay in Austria was considered inconsistent with public order.

Klamer, at the time he was still an Austrian citizen, had repeatedly neglected to obey the summons to perform his military duty, and had acquired his American citizenship at the very age when he was liable to serve in the army, without having received the permit to emigrate, which the Austrian laws prescribe to persons under such circumstances. Not coming under the provisions of 1, 2, and 3, of Article 2, of the treaty of September 20, 1870, he was not, on his return to Austria, held to perform subsequent military service. The treaty has therefore not been violated, inasmuch as the United States citizenship of Klamer was recognized.

The above-mentioned treaty, however, does not deprive the imperial royal Government of the right to issue a decree of expulsion against any foreigner whose stay in the country may be considered as being inconsistent with public peace. In the present case the United States citizenship was obtained with the evident intention, or at least with the full knowledge, of avoiding, by so doing, the performance of the duties of an Austrian subject, under the protection of the treaty of the year 1870.

The naturalization took place, therefore, when regarded from an Austrian legal point of view, doubtless in fraudem legis. The return of such a person to his former home for the purpose of final settlement, is an open disregard of the laws of the country, calculated not only to prompt others to do likewise, but also to excite the envy of those subjects who perform the duties imposed upon them.

In the note of November 12 last it is admitted that Klamer, after having been summoned for military duty, had taken steps to have his name struck from the army list; that he was aware, therefore, of his liability; and that; he acquired his United Spates citizenship without awaiting the result of his application.

For these reasons the imperial and royal Government must protest against the return of such individuals as being detrimental to public order.

The provisions of the Austrian and of the Hungarian military laws of October 2, 1882, No. 153, were not framed until after the treaty of September 20, 1870, had been concluded. The result is that the United States Government does not always judge the proceedings of the authorities here against former Austrian or Hungarian subjects from the same point of view, however justified the measures may be, according to our laws.

A change in this situation can only take place when the provisions of the treaty of 1870 are revised, which gave rise to these misunderstandings, keeping intact the stipulations which have proved otherwise so beneficial and well adapted. The Government of the United States will perhaps be the more ready for such a revision, as it can hardly be desirous to receive an increase of a class of individuals who remain in the country only long enough to acquire naturalization and then return to their former home to live, under the protection of the treaty. The I. and R. ministry of foreign affairs intends to revert once more to the principles involved in this question.

Leaving it to the option of the honorable envoy of the United States to make his Government acquainted with the contents of the foregoing statement, the undersigned begs to avail himself, etc.

(For the minister of foreign affairs.)

M. Pasetti.