No. 366.
Mr. Bayard
to Mr. McLane.
Department
of State,
Washington, February 24,
1888.
No. 302.]
Sir: I inclose for your information copy of a
letter lately received from Senator William M. Stewart, with its inclosure,
being a letter addressed to him and Senator Jones, jointly, by Governor
Stevenson, of Nevada, and of my reply to Senator Stewart of this date, all
having reference to the case of Mr. Fruchier, an American citizen
constrained to service in the armies of France, touching which you were
instructed
[Page 514]
by the Department’s No.
217, of April 16, 1887, and No. 268, of October 20, 1887.
In my reply to the Senator you will observe that I have briefly summarized
the position laid down on behalf of this Government touching the right of
expatriation, and the sufficiency of the judicial decree of the competent
tribunal in proof of the fact, as set forth in my No. 298 of the 15th
instant.
The case of Mr. Fruchier seems to be well adapted to test the question now in
controversy, and, with a view to completing the record here, I have to
request you to send me transcripts of your correspondence with the French
Government in relation thereto, the result of which you communicated to me
by your No. 495, of 4th November last.
I am, etc.,
[Inclosure 1 in No. 302.]
Mr. Stewart to Mr.
Bayard.
United
States Senate,
Washington, D.
C.
February 18, 1888. (Received February
20.)
Sir: Inclosed find letter from the governor of
Nevada, C. C. Stevenson, in regard to John Fruchier, an American
citizen, who was pressed into the military service of France some
fourteen months ago while on a visit to relatives. It seems to me to be
a matter requiring the attention of your Department. Please inform me
what has been done in the matter.
Yours, etc.,
[Inclosure 2 in No. 302.]
Governor Stevenson
to Mr. Stewart, Mr. Jones, and Mr.
Woodburn.
Carson
City, Nev., February 7,
1888.
Gentlemen: John Fruchier, a native of France,
was naturalized in the district court of this State, in Douglas County.
Ex-State Senator H. F. Dangberg and Assemblyman H. Springmeyer were his
witnesses when he obtained his final papers; and he was in Mr.
Dangberg’s employ as a farm hand some years.
In November, 1886, he concluded to visit his relatives in France, and
arrived there in December, 1886, when he was at once pressed into the
military service of France, and there remains.
My attention was called to this matter by Mr. Dangberg last March, and on
the 24th of that month I wrote to Hon. T. F. Bayard, Secretary of State,
and (inclosing a certified copy of Mr. Fruchier’s naturalization
certificate and the affidavits of Messrs. Dangberg and Springmeyer as to
identity) laid the matter before him as fully as it was in my power to
do, and urged that appropriate action be taken in the premises. On April
16, 1887, Acting Secretary A. A. Adee wrote me that the papers had been
received, and “Mr. McLane, our minister at Paris, had been instructed to
bring the matter to the attention of the French Government with a view
to securing the discharge of Mr. Fruchier from the French army if
possible.”
I wrote Mr. Bayard on the subject again on June 9, and still again on
October 11, 1887, but the above is all the definite information received
to date from Mr. Bayard.
Mr. Fruchier has many and warm friends in Nevada, who naturally feel
indignant that he, an American citizen, has been now nearly fourteen
months in the constrained military service of a foreign government.
Will you not, gentlemen, look into this matter, and see if something can
be done for our wronged fellow-citizen?
I am, etc.,
C. C. Stevenson,
Governor.
Hons. W. M. Stewart
and
John P.
Jones, U. S.
Senate
, and
Hon. Wm. Woodburn,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D. C.
[Page 515]
[Inclosure 3 in No. 302.]
Mr. Bayard to Mr.
Stewart.
Department of State,
Washington, February 24,
1888.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the
receipt of your letter of the 18th instant, inclosing a communication
addressed to you and your colleague, Senator Jones, jointly, by the
governor of the State of Nevada, relative to the case of John Fruchier,
a naturalized citizen of the United States, of French birth, who, on
returning to France on a visit to his relatives some fourteen months
ago, was pressed into the military service of France.
The case having been brought to the attention of this Department by
Governor Stevenson’s letter of March 24, the papers submitted by him,
including certified copy of the decree of the competent court of record
naturalizing Mr. Fruchier, were sent to the United States minister at
Paris, with instructions to effect the release of Mr. Fruchier from
military service, if possible.
On the 20th of October last, not having heard from Mr. McLane on the
subject, and in view of Governor Stevenson’s letter of October 11, I
called upon the legation in Paris to report its action in the premises
and the result, and received a reply from our minister, dated November
4, 1887, stating that, as usual in such cases, the French Government had
declined to take any action in the matter on the ground that a Frenchman
who claims to have acquired foreign citizenship can not be discharged
from the military rolls until he produces a judgment of a French civil
court recognizing that he has lost his original nationality.
The case of Mr. Fruchier belongs to a class which has for some years been
the occasion of controversy with the Government of France. The nature of
the French claim in this regard is reviewed by Mr. Vignaud, then chargé
d’affaires ad interim, in a dispatch No. 665, of
November 13, 1884, printed in the volume of Foreign Relations for that year, pages
176, 182.
The United States minister at Paris has recently, under the Department’s
sanction and approval, addressed the French Government, taking the
ground that, according to the often enunciated doctrine of this country,
a certificate of naturalization is of force ubiquitous by and sufficient
evidence of the judicial decree it sets forth, and its validity is not
open to impeachment by the French Government, either in its executive or
judicial branch; and that if it is alleged to have been improvidently
issued the remedy is to be sought through the diplomatic channel.
Whether in this class of cases, where validity of the individual’s
naturalization is admitted, he is subject to any penalty, on returning
to France, for offenses or neglects of duty with which he may have been
chargeable before he left France, is a question dependent upon many
conditions, which can only be determined in relation to each particular
case as it arises. In Mr. Fruchier’s case the opportunity for
examination and discussion of such conditions has not been afforded. In
its initial and most important stage it is amply covered in the pending
controversy, and Mr. McLane will be instructed to bear it especially in
mind and, if necessary, make it a test issue in common with others of
the same nature.
I have, etc.,
