No. 380.
Mr. McLane
to Mr. Bayard.
Legation of
the United States,
Paris, April 27, 1888.
(Received May 8.)
No. 594.]
Sir: With my No. 538 of January 24th last, I sent
you copy of a note addressed to the French foreign office remonstrating
against the treatment to which American citizens of French origin were
subjected in France when visiting that country, if they had failed to
perform military service, and insisting that they should be recognized and
treated as American citizens when I had officially certified that they had
such a character. At the same time I formally demanded the discharge from
all military obligations of three American citizens of that class—John
Arbios and John Fruchier, actually in the French army, and Gendrot, summoned
to perform the same service (but who had returned to the United States,
having fortunately made his escape).
This morning I have received a reply to this note, a copy and a translation
of which are herewith inclosed.
After stating that the French Government does not presume to question the
validity of any act of naturalization issued by the United States, Mr.
Goblet remarks that, on the other hand, it belongs to the Government
[Page 531]
of origin to ascertain if the
Frenchman who obtained naturalization abroad is free from any obligations
towards the mother country.
Waiving, however, the discussion of this point, but reserving expressly his
opinion thereon, Mr. Goblet informs me that the minister of war has agreed
as a favor—“à titre gracieux”—to let Arbios and Fruchier off on furlough,
which is practically equivalent to a discharge, except that it is still
held, notwithstanding my official declaration to that effect, that their
American citizenship is not yet established. Arbios and Fruchier are
therefore still considered as French, and, although orders have been issued
to release them from their present military obligations, they are still
technically liable to military service in the re serve.
As for the mode of settling definitely between us all questions of this
character, Mr. Goblet says that the minister of war and himself are ready to
consider any suggestion I may have to make with reference to the subject. I
propose, therefore, to address to Mr. Goblet a communication, explaining how
I understand this question can be settled; but before so doing I shall
acquaint you with my views, and ask if you have any objections or
suggestions to make.
I have, etc.,
[inclosure in No.
594.—Translation.]
Mr. Goblet to Mr.
McLane.
Sir: My department, in concert with the war
department, has submitted to an attentive examination the considerations
stated in your communication of the 11th of January, in regard to the
men Fruchier, Arbios, and Gendrot, the two first born in France and
afterwards naturalized in the United States, the third horn in that
country of a French father, whose discharge from service under our flags
you asked for.
The war department had at first expressed the opinion that these
individuals should answer before French justice for the offense of
disobedience to orders, with which they were charged, and that the claim
made in their behalf raised a question of status that the civil courts
were alone competent to settle.
Refusing to accept, in regard to this last point, this manner of looking
at the case, you endeavor to establish that “when the Government of the
United States declares that these persons are American citizens and
claims them as such, the proof of their foreign nationality ought to be
considered as conclusive. A French tribunal can neither contest this
proof nor add anything to it, because it is an admitted principle that
the government which grants the naturalization is the only judge of the
conditions upon which it does so.”
Permit me to point out to you that it has never occurred to the French
authorities to question the value of the act of naturalization by virtue
of which a Frenchman by birth has become an American. But you will agree
with me that, if the Government of the United States is in fact the only
judge of the conditions under which it grants naturalization to a
foreigner, it is the right, on the other hand, of the government under
whose jurisdiction this foreigner is, and of it alone, to decide whether
the aforesaid foreigner has complied with the law of his country of
origin, for, if consent is, as yon very justly remark, an indispensable
element to the validity of the contract conferring nationality, other
conditions can be required as well. Hence the conflicts so frequent, as
you know, which arise in these matters, not only between states having
different laws, but also between those which have laws identically the
same. Numerous examples might be cited to prove this.
Nevertheless, while keeping entirely in reserve the question of principle
involved, my colleague, the minister of war, consents, as an act of
courtesy, to grant leave of absence until the time of the expiration of
the term of active service which they owe to—
- (1)
- Fruchier, a delinquent of the class of 1874, enrolled the 22d
January, 1887, in the Seventh Regiment of Infantry, after having
undergone the punishment of eight days’ imprisonment.
- (2)
- Arbios, condemned also as a delinquent of the class 1883, and
enrolled in the One hundredth Regiment of Infantry since the
29th September, 1886.
Instructions have consequently been transmitted to the generals
commanding the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Army Corps.
As to the agreement which it may be possible to establish between the two
governments for the settlement in a general manner of situations of the
nature of these to which you have called my attention, the minister of
war and myself are quite ready to examine any propositions which may be
presented to us upon that subject.
Accept, etc.,
