Mr. White to Mr. Hay.

No. 1665.]

Sir: I have the honor to invite attention to the case of one Paul N. Friedlaender, a naturalized American citizen of German origin, and to request that such instructions may be given in regard thereto as may be found appropriate.

Friedlaender was naturalized at Chicago, on May 28, 1897, after having resided in the United States for a full term of five years. He had had permission to emigrate from Germany and had regularly renewed his German passport until the time of his becoming an American citizen. His mother, who lives at Potsdam, near Berlin, was called upon about a year ago to pay a fine on his account—for being absent without permission—and she had become involved in correspondence with the local authorities. In March, 1901, Friedlaender applied to the embassy for its assistance, and on the 23d of that month a note (F. O. No. 918) was addressed to the foreign office asking that such steps might be taken as were “necessary to effect the return to Friedlaender of his American papers, the refunding of any money which may have already been paid on account of his failure to report for military service, the cessation of all proceedings against him which may have been taken on the same account, and his recognition as an American citizen.”

To this note the foreign office replied, under date of June 12, returning Friedlaender’s naturalization certificate and certain other papers, and stating that he had been sentenced to pay a fine of 30 marks or to undergo imprisonment for ten days by a local court, on April 10, 1900, on account of his “unauthorized emigration,” but that Friedlaender had not yet paid the fine and costs and as he was in America there was no necessity, at present, to take steps looking toward his pardon.

The embassy at once replied (F. O. No. 969) that Friedlaender expected to return to Germany upon a visit during the present year, and requested that such steps might be taken as were necessary to set aside the sentence against him.

Under date of June 28, the foreign office addressed another note to [Page 181] the embassy, advising that Friedlaender petition the Emperor directly in order that the judgment against him might be set aside before his return to Germany, and suggesting that, in order to expedite matters, the embassy should support such a petition when made.

To this note the embassy replied at once (F. O. No. 987) requesting a reconsideration of the case, as Friedlaender’s offense was merely emigration without permission, and not desertion, and as “under the circumstances, in the opinion of the embassy and in accordance with precedent, the case falls within the provisions of the treaty of 1868, and the two Prussian ministerial decrees of July of that year, copies of which are transmitted herewith. As the Prussian ministry of justice has decreed that ‘die durch strafbare Auswanderung verwirkte Strafe * * * nicht zur Vollstreckung gebracht werden soil,’ there would appear to be no reason for Friedlaender’s making a formal petition for pardon.”

To this note the foreign office has now replied, under date of the 8th instant, that the ministerial decrees referred to above presupposed the actual return to Germany of the person in question, that it was probable that Friedlaender’s fine would be remitted by an act of clemency, and that it would be advisable for him to send in a petition to the Emperor before coming to Germany, as if he did not do so he might be called upon to pay the fine and take the consequences.

The embassy will make no reply to this note for the present. The foreign office’s advice has, however, been communicated to Friedlander, who has been informed that while the embassy holds that he is entitled to visit Germany without molestation under the terms of the treaty itself, and that no pardon is necessary, it might enable him to avoid possible trouble if he acted upon this advice. He has been requested to inform the embassy with regard to his decision and his movements in the event of his coming to Germany.

Without instructions, however, the embassy would not feel at liberty to give support to any petition which Friedlaender may determine to send in, as by so doing it might be considered that the embassy admitted the correctness of the position now taken by the foreign office. If it is necessary for Friedlaender to send in a petition in order to secure such rights as would appear to be his under the treaty, there is no reason why the same course should not be followed by every American citizen of German origin who desires to visit his former home, and this, under existing circumstances, the embassy is not prepared to admit.

I have, etc.,

Andrew D. White.