UNITED STATES AND PRUSSIA. the two Governments in respect to the rights and privileges of American citizens. In reference to the arrest and treatment of Mr. Ernst, as soon as you shall have transmitted to the department the further information which you anticipate, such additional instructions will be sent to you as the case may seem to require. J. A. Wright, Esq. SIR, your I have, &c. No. 61-Mr. Cass to Mr. Wright. LEWIS CASS. Washington, December 9, 1859. YOUR despatch, dated October 12, announcing the closing of your correspondence with the Hanoverian Government has been received at the department, and it affords me pleasure to inform you that course in this matter is fully approved. And I have you have to express equal gratification at the manner in which urged upon the Prussian Government our views respecting the rights of American citizens, and am confident you will lose no proper opportunity to impress upon it the importance which The United States attach to this matter, and their firm persuasion that the Prussian Government will afford to their citizens, while in Prussia, the protection to which we maintain they are entitled, as well by the law of nations as by Treaty stipulations. In this view of the subject, any additional Treaty with reference to it, seems by no means indispensable, since what we claim for our naturalized citizens is not a concession on the part of Prussia, but only the recognition of their unquestionable rights. The principles we maintain, and the rights which they insure, are clearly laid down in your instructions, and need not be recapitulated. We trust they will be recognized, and faithfully observed by Prussia, and that no case in violation of them will be permitted to arise hereafter within the Prussian territories. I have not failed to observe the suggestion of the Hanoverian Minister, reported in yours, that in the settlement of this vexed question of military service the initiative must come from The United States; and your own views of what might well be proposed as the basis of negotiation, if this initiative should be undertaken, have also been considered. It is hoped, however, that after the full deliberation which recent events have naturally led the German Powers to bestow on this, it can no longer be regarded as a "vexed question," but that practically, at least, it will cease to disturb in any way our relations with those Powers. As I have already said, the claim which we urge in behalf of our naturalized fellowcitizens, is a claim not of favour but of right, and except for the regulation of details or modes of proceeding it is not perceived that 4 R 2 anything more is necessary than that these citizens when they visit Germany should be allowed to remain there without hindrance and depart in peace. The question raised in your first proposition of the length of time they may have been absent from the land of their birth, does not appear to this department to have any important bearing upon the status which they are entitled to occupy after their temporary return. If they are citizens of The United States, they are entitled to all the rights of citizens, whether they have been absent 10 years, or 5 years, or one year. And if they have thus become citizens of this country, it is difficult to understand why any special exemption should be claimed for them in respect to judicial proceedings, as mentioned in your proposition No. 2. The liability of a citizen of The United States before the courts of Hanover cannot depend upon the question whether he is a native or naturalized citizen, but upon the question only whether he has committed any offence against Hanoverian law. Expatriation, as you have been already instructed, is no such offence, and we cannot permit an unreasonable distinction to be made between different classes of our citizens. Your third and fourth propositions are not necessarily connected with this subject. It is certainly desirable, however, that no American citizen should be ordered out of a German State, without the notice and trial to which you refer; and should this be done, without good cause to justify the summary proceeding, it might well be regarded as an unfriendly act. Our existing Treaty with Hanover, you are aware, permits the free residence of our citizens there, and grants them free access to the judicial tribunals. It is quite possible that these privileges may be extended with advantage, and if so, the opportunity should not be lost. The trial of German citizens in this country is always public, and such should be the trial of our citizens in Germany. We should be glad, also, to secure for them a right of appeal. Of course we have no disposition to interfere with the domestic affairs of other States, or to dictate to them their modes of judicial proceeding. A friendly representation, however, on this subject, cannot be regarded as in any way objec tionable, and may avoid unpleasant complications hereafter. Whenever one of our citizens is secretly tried and punished, the proceeding necessarily creates complaint, and always requires explanation. It is better to avoid the opportunity of complaint by avoiding the secrecy which leads to it. In respect to your fourth proposition for the "total exemption of the citizens of The United States, residing in Hanover and Prussia, from liability to support in any manner soldiers, officers, and those connected with the military service of the country." I do not understand precisely the nature and extent of the existing UNITED STATES AND PRUSSIA. obligations to which you refer; and before instructing you on this subject I shall be glad to hear from you again. Certainly the relinquishment of any tax imposed upon our citizens in Germany would be highly acceptable to this Government; but we do not wish to urge such an exemption to the extent of an interference with the just rights of the German States. We would, of course, ask nothing from other Governments in behalf of our citizens, which we would not be willing, in like cases, to concede to them. Having thus placed you fully in possession of the views of your Government, I have only to repeat the instruction already given you, to urge them, by all proper means, upon those Governments with whose representatives you may be brought in connection at Berlin. In this way it is hoped that such a friendly understanding may be reached on this whole subject as will make it impossible for any new case to arise, in reference to it, requiring the intervention I am, &c. of this Government. J. A. Wright, Esq. SIR, No. 62.-Mr. Cass to Mr. Wright. LEWIS CASS. Washington, December 17, 1859. HEREWITH I transmit the copy of a letter of the 18th October, addressed to this department by Isidor Dandson, a resident of California, in relation to the enforced military service now being performed in Prussia by his brother, Simon Dandson, whom he represents to be a citizen of The United States. You will investigate the circumstances connected with this case, and take such measures as, under the instructions already given you by the department respecting similar cases, you shall think proper, should the representations of Mr. Dandson prove to be correct. J. A. Wright, Esq. (Extract.) I am, &c. LEWIS CASS. No. 63.-Mr. Wright to Mr. Cass. Berlin, March 7, 1860. I HAVE the honour to forward herewith copies of the correspondence with the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the case of Darnston, or Dandson, or Davidson, mentioned in your despatch It appears that he, Davidson, was disdated December 19, 1859. charged from military service long since. His conduct is in keeping with that of a great many other naturalized citizens. It seems that he exhibited no passport, and did not state to any person that he was an American citizen. Hon. Lewis Cass. JOSEPH A. WRIGHT. M. LE BARON, (Inclosure 1.)-Mr. Wright to Baron de Schleinitz. Berlin, January 17, 1860. A DESPATCH from my Government, just received, incloses the complaint of Isidor D., that his brother, Simon Darntson (or Dandson), formerly a subject of His Majesty the King of Prussia, but now a citizen of The United States, left the State of California, one of The United States, to visit his parents, in Prussia, on the 20th of September, 1858, with a passport from the Government of The United States; and that upon his reaching Prussia, he has been forced to do military service in one of the regiments of its army stationed at Grandenz. As such complaints of wrong annoy the Government of The United States greatly, I have to pray your Excellency to have this complaint investigated immediately, and to communicate to me the result as soon as possible. Your Excellency will please permit me to renew, &c. Baron de Schleinitz. SIR, JOSEPH A. WRIGHT. (Inclosure 2.)-Baron von Schleinitz to Mr. Wright. (Translation.) Berlin, March 3, 1860. I MADE it my duty, on the receipt of your letter of the 17th January last, to inform the Minister of War of the reclamation of Mr. Isidor Darnston, or Dandson, citizen of The United States, who complains that his brother Simon, on the occasion of a visit made to his parents in Prussia, was compelled to enter the ranks of the army. I send you the result of a report which General de Roon demanded upon this subject from the competent military authority. Simon Darntson, or Dandson, is apparently the same who figures in the list of young people of the circle of Strasburg for the year 1852, under the name of Simon Davidson. This individual, born 6th May, 1831, at Strasburg, where his parents still live, is undoubtedly a Prussian by origin. The 2nd July, 1852, the Provincial Councillor of the circle caused a passport to be issued to him, available for one year, which authorized him to go to America, for which, in effect, he placed himself en route in the month of March, 1853. Simon Davidson only returned to his native country towards the end of the year 1858. Not having obtained, meantime, a permit of emigration, and not having been able to obtain one, because he had not yet satisfied his military duties, he was first enrolled in a battalion of the 3rd brigade of infautry, and on the 11th August, 1859, in the 3rd battalion of the 4th regiment of the landwehr, in garrison at Grandenz. Soon found to be unfit for military service, he was set at large 22nd November last, and since then has settled at Thorn. You will convince yourself by this exposé, Sir, that the proceed ing taken in regard to the said Simon Davidson has been in strict conformity to law. For the rest, this person has never pretended, at any examination he has undergone since his return to Prussia, that he was a citizen of The United States and provided with an American passport. J. A. Wright, Esq. Accept, &c. SCHLEINITZ. NOTIFICATION of the Hanoverian Government, relative to Commercial Intercourse between Hanover and Russia.Hanover, May 10, 1861. (Translation.) WHEREAS it has been agreed upon between the Royal Government of Hanover and the Imperial Government of Russia to extend likewise to Russian subjects residing in this Kingdom, as well as to the Hanoverian subjects residing in the Russian Empire, the mutual advantages enjoyed by the French and Russian subjects on the principle of reciprocity, in virtue of Article I of the Russian-French Treaty of Commerce and Navigation (of June, 1857 *), annexed herewith, in the original text, and in a German translation. The aforesaid is hereby brought to the knowledge of all whom it may concern for their information and future guidance. Hanover, 10th May, 1861. COUNT v. KIELMANSEGGE, DECREE of the Queen of Spain, for the Re-Incorporation of Santo Domingo with the Spanish Dominions.—Aranjuez, May 19, 1861. (Translation.) GENERAL DON PEDRO SANTANA, late President of the Republic of Santo Domingo, forwarded to the Governor and Captain-General of the Island of Cuba, for transmission to Her Majesty the Queen, the letter which is inserted below. Her Majesty the Queen has made herself acquainted with its contents with the liveliest satisfaction. "MADAM, Letter referred to. "Santo Domingo, March 18, 1861. "The people who, together with the immortal Columbus, raised the standard of Castille in Hispaniola; who subsequently reconquered their former nationality, and restored to the Crown of Spain the pearl of which it had been deprived by the Treaty of Bâle; who were * Vol. XLVII. Page 651. |