No. 51.—Mr. Wright to Mr. Cass. (Extract.) Berlin, June 4, 1859. I AM just in receipt of your dispatch dated May 12. It shall receive my most earnest and constant attention. During the present crisis, it will be impossible to turn the attention of the Government to these interesting and, to us, deeply important questions. As an evidence of the disposition of the Prince Regent to avoid this class of subjects at present, I cite the case of Francis A. Hoffmann, mentioned in my despatch. In this case, the Ministers of War, Justice, Interior, and Foreign Affairs, have all united in favour of his petition; but the Prince Regent has, as yet, not acted, although his attention has been frequently solicited. I feel armed, on this subject, with the views, opinions, and arguments so well and forcibly expressed in the instructions of the President. I cannot doubt of the ultimate success. To accomplish this end, I will devote most faithfully my time and abilities. Hon. Lewis Cass. (Extract.) JOSEPH A. WRIGHT. No. 52.—Mr. Wright to Mr. Cass. Berlin, June 25, 1859. It is impossible to engage the attention of the Government of Prussia, at the present time, upon the subject mentioned in your despatch, dated May 12, 1859. Hon. Lewis Cass. SIR, JOSEPH A. WRIGHT. No. 53. Mr. Cass to Mr. Wright. Washington, July 8, 1859. I AM directed by the President to call your immediate attention to the case of Christian Ernst, a naturalized American citizen, who is said to have been recently forced into the service of the King of Hanover, and to be now performing military duty in his army. According to the representations of his friends, Mr. Ernst is a native of Hanover, but left that country some 8 or 10 years ago, and came to The United States, where he declared his intention to become an American citizen, and where he was legally naturalized on the 24th of February, A.D. 1859. His oath of allegiance to this Government was administered in the Court of Common Pleas for Scioto county, Ohio, and nearly all his relatives reside in that State. They allege that at the time of his departure from Hanover, he was neither in actual service in the Hanoverian army nor had been drafted to serve in it, and that consequently he was under no military obligation to that Kingdom. Under these circumstances, having occasion to visit Germany, he obtained a passport from this department on the 24th of March last, and in the following April he You are authorized to bring this subject to the attention of the Prussian Government, and to ask its favourable action in relation to it. But the principal subject of complaint on the part of The United States, growing out of the Treaty, results from the power assumed by the Prussian Government to compel the performance of military service in cases which, in the opinion of this Government, are not justified by that instrument. Prussia does not hold to the doctrine of perpetual allegiance, but recognizes the right of her native-born citizens to expatriate themselves, and to form new political ties in a new country. And whatever may have been the conflicting views entertained on this subject in former times, it is believed that this right is now generally acquiesced in by all the leading nations of the earth. Practically, at least, it is not likely that the doctrine of perpetual allegiance will ever hereafter be insisted on. In this age of the world, the idea of controlling the citizen in the choice of a home, and binding him by the tie of a mere political theory to inhabit, for his lifetime, a country which he constantly desires to leave, can hardly be entertained by any Government whatever. All, probably, that can be expected or obtained in respect to citizens or subjects who wish to emigrate is, that, before emigrating, they shall discharge faithfully the duties, whether past or present, which they owe to the country of their birth. This being done, they are free, doubtless, to find a new home in whatever portion of the world they may choose to live. In recognizing this doctrine, as she is understood to do, Prussia places herself fully in accord with the spirit of the age, and with what will, doubtless, hereafter be regarded as the settled law of the world. Preliminary, however, to the exercise of the right of expatriation in Prussia, it appears, by the information furnished you by Baron Manteuffel, that the permission of the Government is required, and that the violation of this law is punishable by fine and imprisonment. It is not known, whether this law is stringently enforced, or how far it is restrained in its application by considerations of age or condition, but it is not easy to reconcile its existence with a full admission of the right of expatriation. When a native Prussian leaves his country, even without permission, and becomes a naturalized citizen of The United States, can it be reasonably contended that he is liable to punishment, should he return to Prussia, merely because he so left? This would be to hold that he could be justly punished for having exercised an acknowledged right. It is indispensable that he should leave Prussia before he can find a new home elsewhere; and to punish him for his departure is to punish him for changing his home. If this doctrine is maintained, it is easy to see how often and painfully two great nations may be brought in conflict with regard to their respective rights and duties in the case of a subject of the one who has become a naturalized citizen of the other. Such a person returns to the land of his birth, for example, claiming no protection in his original character as a native of the country, but relying on the Government of his new home to see that he is not injured himself, while he does wrong to no one else. What is the duty towards him of this new Government? Shall it permit him to be placed in prison, or otherwise punished, without any attempt whatever for his protection? Especially shall it do this, when there is a Treaty in full force between the two countries which provides that the citizens or subjects of either shall be allowed to visit and reside in the territories of the other? These questions indicate very clearly in what way a collision of duty and authority might frequently arise among nations, if the act of expatriation is to be regarded as a grave offence, and punishable by fine and imprisonment. I am persuaded that the enlightened Government of Prussia will not fail to appreciate this difficulty, and that your representations on the subject will not, therefore, be without effect. In respect to the claim of military service, which is regarded by the States of Germany as of great importance, a manifest distinction is to be made between actual deserters from the army and the withdrawal from the country of persons who have not yet been drafted into service. The former are undoubtedly under obligations to perform their military duty whenever they return to their native State. But the mere contingency that he may be called into service cannot place the citizen or subject under the same obligation. The principle of compulsory military service exists in The United States, and all their citizens able to bear arms may be called out, if required, to defend the Republic. But this liability which exists, till destroyed by physical disability, and becomes an active duty when called for by the state of the country, interferes with no man's right to travel at home or abroad, or to become a member of some other political community. And the same considerations apply to all the duties which men are required to perform under all Governments, such as serving upon juries, where juries make part of the judicial system, the holding of civil offices, where the law imposes this duty, and various other kinds of obligatory service which the necessities of society require, and which from time to time during life must be performed. If the future liability to do military duty creates a perpetual obligation, wherever the party may be, and whatever other responsibilities he may have incurred, the same principle will enable a Government to prevent its subjects or citizens from ever leaving its dominions or changing their home. [1861-62. LII.] 4 Q It would be a practical denial of all right of expatriation, and a full assertion of the doctrine of perpetual allegiance. In stating these views, I must not be understood as desiring to limit in any manner the jurisdiction of Prussia within its own territories, or to contest in the slightest degree its full control over its own municipal legislation. I appeal only to the express language of our Treaty, and to those principles and that policy which are approved by Prussia herself. So far as two of the points mentioned in your despatch of the 18th of January are concerned, it is not supposed that there would be any serious difference of opinions between Prussia and The United States. I cannot believe that the claim of military duty will be insisted upon as against an American citizen who left Germany before the age when he became liable to military duty. Since the class of those who leave without permission after the age of liability, but before they have actually been called into service, cannot be a large one, it is hoped that a liberal disposition on the part of the two Governments in respect to the few persons of the class who may desire to return to Prussia, will prevent the occurrence of any practical disagreement between Prussia and The United States. Under our Treaty with Prussia there can be no doubt that American citizens who owe no service to Prussia, and have broken no Prussian law, have a right to visit and reside in Prussian territories without being in any way molested by the Government. And if they are charged with any offence, it seems only reasonable that their trial should be surrounded with all the usual safeguards of a court of justice. Or if, under any circumstances, their cases should require, in the opinion of the Prussian Government, a summary examination, this Government surely ought to be supplied with copies of the papers on which the proceeding was founded, and the reasons which led to its result. While Prussia has a perfect right to proceed against persons found within its jurisdiction, the Government of those persons has an equal right to inquire whether the proceeding was reasonable, and the result which was reached just. In discussing this subject with the Prussian Government, you will bear in mind its difficulties, and will aim to procure a modifica tion of the existing system by an appeal to the justice and intelligence of the Prussian authorities, rather than by a peremptory demand, which might be calculated to defeat its own object. J. A. Wright, Esq. I am, &c. LEWIS CASS. UNITED STATES AND PRUSSIA. No. 51.-Mr. Wright to Mr. Cass. (Extract.) Berlin, June 4, 1859. It shall I AM just in receipt of your dispatch dated May 12. receive my most earnest and constant attention. During the present crisis, it will be impossible to turn the attention of the Government to these interesting and, to us, deeply important questions. As an evidence of the disposition of the Prince Regent to avoid this class of subjects at present, I cite the case of Francis A. Hoffmann, mentioned in my despatch. In this case, the Ministers of War, Justice, Interior, and Foreign Affairs, have all united in favour of his petition; but the Prince Regent has, as yet, not acted, although his attention has been frequently solicited. I feel armed, on this subject, with the views, opinions, and arguments so well and forcibly expressed in the instructions of I cannot doubt of the ultimate success. the President. accomplish this end, I will devote most faithfully my time and abilities. Hon. Lewis Cass. (Extract.) To JOSEPH A. WRIGHT. No. 52.-Mr. Wright to Mr. Cass. Berlin, June 25, 1859. It is impossible to engage the attention of the Government of Prussia, at the present time, upon the subject mentioned in your despatch, dated May 12, 1859. Hon. Lewis Cass. SIR, JOSEPH A. WRIGHT. No. 53. Mr. Cass to Mr. Wright. your Washington, July 8, 1859. immediate attention I AM directed by the President to call to the case of Christian Ernst, a naturalized American citizen, who is said to have been recently forced into the service of the King of Hanover, and to be now performing military duty in his army. According to the representations of his friends, Mr. Ernst is a native of Hanover, but left that country some 8 or 10 years ago, and came to The United States, where he declared his intention to become an American citizen, and where he was legally naturalized on the 24th of February, A.D. 1859. His oath of allegiance to this Government was administered in the Court of Common Pleas for Scioto county, Ohio, and nearly all his relatives reside in that State. They allege that at the time of his departure from Hanover, he was neither in actual service in the Hanoverian army nor had been drafted to serve in it, and that consequently he was under no miliUnder these circumstances, tary obligation to that Kingdom. having occasion to visit Germany, he obtained a passport from this department on the 24th of March last, and in the following April he 4Q 2 |