No. 356.
Mr. Vignaud to Mr. Bayard.
Legation of
the United States,
Paris, December 29, 1887.
(Received January 10.)
No. 526.]
Sir: I have the honor to send herewith a copy and
translation of Mr. Flourens’ reply to my last communication, insisting upon
the discharge of Gendrot. Mr. Flourens says the minister of war can not
comply with the request, and repeats the usual reply made by his department
to applications of this kind having reference to French naturalized
Americans, viz, that Gendrot can apply to the courts of justice, and that if
he secures a judgment declaring that he is not a Frenchman he will be
discharged.
Mr. Flourens is undoubtedly aware that the remedy he suggests here is, in
this peculiar case, illusive. The French courts of justice can adjudge that
a Frenchman who has been naturalized abroad has lost his original national
character, because French law so states it. But Gendrot being a natural-born
American, son of a Frenchman, remains a Frenchman according to French law.
His application to the courts can not therefore be successful. It seems that
he has so understood his case, for I am informed by his father that, being
about to be arrested again and imprisoned, he has left France.
I have, etc.,
[Inclosure in No.
526.—Translation.]
Mr. Flourens to Mr.
Vignaud.
Paris, December 28,
1887.
Sir: On the 17th of this month you were good
enough to write to me again upon the subject of the young man Gendrot,
born in the United States of French parents. You insisted in that
communication upon obtaining the exemption of that person from military
service under our flag.
The minister of war, to whom I had not failed to refer your letter,
recalls the fact that Gendrot, born abroad of a French father, since the
latter is in the enjoyment at Torcé (Sarthe) of his civil and political
rights, is a Frenchman by the terms of article 10 of the civil code, his
position from the point of view of military service is therefore not
doubtful and would be the same, as far as France is concerned, whatever
might be the country where the interested party was born.
My colleague adds that if Gendrot insists upon claiming American
citizenship, he is at liberty, in order to establish his true position,
to apply to the civil courts, which are alone competent, according to
the rules of our law, to decide upon questions relating to the status of
persons. Only upon seeing a decision of our courts declaring the young
man in question a foreigner can the military authorities consent to
order that his name be stricken from the rolls of our army.
I can, therefore, only express to you again my regrets at not being in a
position to further the interest which you take in the situation of
Gendrot.
Accept, etc.,
