was a time,' it says, when it was possible to be mistaken as to his (Bismarck's) genius, his grand patriotic idea, and the lofty goal that he had in view. At that time a similar attempt was made. Now, however, the repetition of such an attempt at assassination must seem threefold, nay, tenfold atrocious.' We entertain the same feelings toward both Blind and Kullmann, and would merely remind the Tageblatt that, according to its way of measuring the guilt, Kullmann has decidedly the advantage, for Blind had hardly been so deeply, so systematically, and so cruelly wounded in his convictions and feelings as Kullmann, supposing the latter to have acted from fanaticism, and not from other motives. We would, moreover, remind those 'liberals' who may be pleased to chime in with the tone of the Börsenzeitung, that pretty much all of the attempts at assassination that have been made of late years, (we refer to those directed against Napoleon III, the Emperor Francis Joseph, the Prince Regent of Prussia, and against Bismarck in 1866,) are to be attributed to 'liberalism' or national ideas, and, therefore, to anything but Catholic motives. As regards the attempt made by Oscar Becker, it has been proved that he desired to become a martyr to those German ideas which liberalism' has encouraged, both before and after the crime, and which it has partially carried into effect." The Kreuzzeitung is very sparing in the description of the impression made upon it by the attempt to assassinate Prince Bismarck. It is glad, however, that "this eriminal attempt to take the life of the chancellor of the empire has also failed, and that the hand of the wretch, which, impelled by hatred and revenge, sought to do that which belongs to God alone, was not permitted to pollute the soil of Germany and to burden the conscience of the people of Germany by a political assassination." It says nothing more on the subject. The Post reminds its readers of the difference between the state of things which prevailed in 1866 and that which prevails in 1874. The love and respect which Germany feels for the chancellor of the empire were not easily earned, it says. No; they were obtained step by step; it was only by degrees that the ice of misunderstanding was thawed which lay between Germany and Germany's most faithful son; the offense that was committed in those days of misunderstanding by a stripling whose mind was full of the erroneous ideas of German fanatics who had sought refuge on a foreign soil, could not now be committed again. The Post then refers to the causes of the crime, and although it does this but indirectly, holds the clerical agitation responsible for it. We now know exactly what are the consequences of this continued agitation. Such exciting of the popular passions should not be tolerated in a well-regulated state. Quousque tandem? With regard to the view taken by the foreign press of the matter, we are as yet able to say nothing definite. Our readers have already seen the telegram which appeared in our last evening's number, and which announced the warm sympathy expressed by the London papers for Prince Bismarck, and spoke of the effect which those papers expect the crime to have upon party affairs in Germany. No. 6.1 No. 268. Mr. Nicholas Fish to Mr. Fish. UNITED STATES LEGATION, Berlin, July 20, 1874. (Received August 6.) Sir: I have the honor to inclose a translation of the acknowledg ment from the secretary of state of the note which I addressed to Prince Bismarck relative to his attempted assassination. I am, &c., [Inclosure.-Translation.] NICHOLAS FISH. Mr. Von Bülow to Mr. Nicholas Fish. FOREIGN OFFICE, Berlin, July 19, 1874. In reply to the note of the 14th instant, of the American chargé d'affaires, Mr. Fish, addressed to the chancellor of the empire, his serene highness Prince Bismarck, the undersigned, acting under instructions, has the honor to bespeak the kind offices of Mr. Fish in communicating to His Excellency the President of the United States the expression of the heart-felt gratitude of his serene highness for the sympathy shown him upon the occasion of his escape from deadly peril. Prince Bismarck desires at the same time to express his warmest thanks for the words of sympathy which the American chargé d'affaires has had the kindness to utter in his own name, as well as in the name of his countrymen. The undersigned embraces this opportunity to renew to the chargé d'affaires the assurance of his most distinguished consideration. No. 269. Mr. Nicholas Fish to Mr. Fish. VON BÜLOW. No. 9.] UNITED STATES LEGATION, Berlin, July 27, 1874. (Received August 13.) SIR Referring to Mr. Bancroft's dispatch No. 599, of the 26th of June, I have the honor to transmit herewith a note of Mr. Von Bülow upon the same subject, together with a copy of my reply. The language of the note of Mr. Von Bülow is such as to indicate a very firm determination to prevent the performance of such acts by our consular officers. If this intention should be carried out it may cause very serious embarrassments to our system of consular verification of invoices. Mr. Von Bülow does not state whether the objection extends to the taking of testimony of German subjects who appear and testify without opposition on their part. In the expectation of your reply to Mr. Bancroft's question I have not asked the views of this government on this point. According to the consular regulations, in the execution of a commission to take testimony the consular officer acts simply as a citizen of the United States. The question thus arises as to how far he can be held liable in his official capacity for such action. I hope I may receive the views of the Department at an early day, as the government here seems anxious to have the question determined. In regard to the particular case that has led to the correspondence, I have written to each of the consular officers mentioned therein, except to the consul-general in Berlin, intimating to them the difficulties any further action on their part might create. In the case of Consul-General Kreismann, I have communicated the same verbally. I remain, &c. [Inclosure 1 in No. 9.-Translation.] NICHOLAS FISH. Mr. von Bülow to Mr. N. Fish. FOREIGN OFFICE, Berlin, July 25, 1874. The undersigned has heretofore, under date of the 24th ultimo, had the honor to make known to Mr. George Bancroft that, according to reliable information, it was intended, in pursuance of a judicial order of the United States district court of New York, to take the testimony of a number of German citizens or their representatives, through the instrumentality of the American consuls at Aix-la-Chapelle, Frankfort-onthe-Main, Berlin, and Leipsic, assisted by commissioners sent to Europe for this pose, in the matter of an action instituted by the customs authorities in New York against a branch house in that city of the firm of S. N. Wolff & Co., of Cassel. He at the same time expressed the hope that that communication would suffice to prevent the actual exercise of the functions claimed for consular officers in the German Em pur pire in the said judicial order, but not warranted by the provisions of Article IX of the German-American convention of December 11, 1871. The undersigned has not been favored with an answer thereto. On the other hand, intelligence has just reached him that the vice-consul of the United States at Barmen, Mr. Ernst Greef, accompanied by Mr. Roger M. Sherman, assistant United States attorney, southern district of New York, had presented himself on the 16th instant at the bureau of the steel and copper-ware manufacturers, Brothers Lüttger, at Petersmühle, and on the 18th instant to Mr. F. C. Lurmann, at Iserlohn, in order to take the testimony of the representatives of these firms in reference to certain facts bearing upon said action. True, in both instances the information demanded was refused, but in both instances the vice-consul of the United States had notified the above-named gentlemen that citations before the American consulates at Aix-la-Chapelle and Frankfort-on-the-Main, respectively, would be issued against them at an early day. In one instance the matter had been carried so far that it was intimated that a refusal to give the desired information would entail upon the respective firm increased difficulty in the transaction of its American business." To the undersigned it seems indubitable that in accordance with the said consular convention, American consular officers are only entitled throughout the German Empire to take the testimony of citizens of the United States within the bounds prescribed in Article IX, and that all official action exceeding the limitations contained therein appears to be a trespass irreconcilable with the lawful rights and duties of the German authorities. Instructions will therefore be immediately issued to the competent tribunals to cause investigation to be made into the action of the above-mentioned American vice-consul at Barmen, as well as into the proposed official proceeding of the above-mentioned consulates, and to make report of the result of said investigation. The undersigned, while he has the honor to bring the above to the notice of Mr. Fish, cannot of course claim to be in possession of an accurate knowledge of the facts of the case, established by both sides. These complaints of German citizens are, however, probably not without foundation in fact, and in this case, the matter being as urgent as his desire is sincere and earnest to see every occasion for a difference of opinion avoided, he takes the liberty to request the chargé d'affaires on his part to consider what is proper to be done to provide against the consequences to the said consular officials necessarily following the transcending of their functions as limited by treaty and exequatur. Respectfully awaiting an answer to this note, the undersigned gladly avails himself of this occasion to renew, &c., &c. VON BÜLOW. [Inciosure 2 in No. 9.] Mr. Nicholas Fish to Mr. von Bülow. UNITED STATES LEGATION, The undersigned, chargé d'affaires of the United States of America, has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the note of his excellency Mr. von Bülow, secretary of state for foreign affairs, of the 25th instant, and he finds from the archives of the legation that the note of his excellency of the 24th ultimo was referred by Mr. Bancroft to his Government. There has not yet been time for a communication in return, and, as the undersigned is without any exact or official knowledge of the case, he has referred the note which he himself received in like manner. In the mean time the undersigned, sharing as he does most fully the desire expressed by his excellency to see every occasion for a difference of opinion avoided, believes that the views of his Government, which he will have the honor hereafter to transmit, will be conceived in like spirit. The undersigned feels persuaded that the actual facts in the case, when ascertained, will show that whatever may have been done in the premises by the consular officers of the United States has been done under an order of a court of law of the United States and for the sole object of subserving the cause of truth and justice. The undersigned gladly avails himself, &c. NICHOLAS FISH. No. 689.] No. 270. Mr. Cadwalader to Mr. Nicholas Fish. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, August 1, 1874. SIR: Your dispatch of the 15th ultimo, No. 4, inclosing, with extracts from the German press, a copy of your note of the 14th ultimo to Prince Bismarck, congratulating him upon his escape from assassination, has been received. Your action in congratulating the prince, as 'communicated by telegraph, has already been approved in No. 684, trom the Department. I am, &c., JOHN L. CADWALADER, Acting Secretary. No. 271. No. 697.] Mr. Fish to Mr. Nicholas Fish. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, August 17, 1874. SIR: I have to acknowledge your dispatch No. 3 of the date of the 11th of July last, transmitting the correspondence between Mr. Bancroft and the minister of foreign affairs in relation to the interpretation and application of the fourth article of the naturalization treaty of February 22, 1868, between the United States and the North German Union. Mr. Bancroft's note of 28th June to Mr. von Bülow correctly sets forth the interpretation of that article of the treaty as understood by this Government, and it is with much satisfaction that the President learns that that interpretation is not controverted by the German government, which declares its intention to execute the treaty at all times with the greatest moderation and respect for the rights of individuals. The point suggested by Mr. von Bülow that the treatment of each case must depend entirely upon the circumstances of the same, is in accord with the position which this Government holds. The value of American citizenship must not be trifled with; this high right must not be invaded by fraud or by false representations; and when honestly acquired, and faithfully maintained, must carry with it to its possessor all the privileges and the protection which a great government can give to its citizens. The case of Mentheim Cohn seems to be disposed of without admitting the inference drawn by Mr. von Bülow. From his recital of the facts of the case, it cannot be denied that that inference is, at the least, plausible. The legation will in the future continue carefully to watch the rights of all naturalized citizens of the United States who may visit or temporarily tarry in Germany, and will assert for them all the privileges and immunities to which they are entitled by treaty or by public law. At the same time it will be careful not to commit the Government of the United States in a demand for its protection in behalf of one who may be manifestly presenting a false or fraudulent claim of citizenship, or who may have already forfeited his right of citizenship in accordance with the letter and spirit of the treaty. I ain, &c., HAMILTON FISH. No. 698.] No. 272. Mr. Fish to Mr. Nicholas Fish. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR Referring to Mr. Bancroft's dispatch No. 599, inclosing a copy of a note addressed to him by Mr. von Bülow in reference to an order issued out of the district court for the southern district of New York, naming certain consuls of the United States to take testimony in an action therein pending in behalf of the Government, against the firm S. N. Wolff & Co., and to your dispatch No. 9, inclosing a second note from Mr. von Bülow on the same subject, I now inclose you a copy of a letter addressed to this Department by the Attorney-General, with a copy of a letter from Mr. Bliss, the United States district attorney at New York, in reference to the question, and a copy of the order complained of. It appears to this Department that the German Government has labored under a serious misapprehension in the matter. The minister of foreign affairs objects to the taking of the desired testimony by the consuls, under the commission in question, on the ground that it is an exercise of functions by consular officers in the German Empire not warranted by Article IX of the German-American convention of December 11, 1871. Under our system of jurisprudence, where the testimony of persons beyond the limits of the United States is desired by either party to an ae tion pending in the courts, the same is taken on commission. For this purpose application is made to the court in which the action is pending, and when granted, a person is agreed on by the parties, or named by the court, to take the evidence, and an order is entered in the court to that effect. Questions are prepared by each party, which are propounded to the witnesses by the person so named, or an oral examination is sometimes provided for, at which both parties are represented by counsel. The answers to the questions are taken, and the evidence thus taken is certified by the commission named, and returned to the court to be read at the trial. No claim is made that a consul of the United States, as such, has, by treaty or by convention, the right to take such testimony. It is no part of his official duty, nor does he act as consul in so doing. He acts in the matter as a private individual, at the request of the parties or the appointment of the court. The Government in no case takes any part in these appointments, they are made by the courts in the independent discharge of their functions as a matter of practice, and with the sole view of the administration of justice and the ascertainment of the facts of the case at issue between the parties litigant. The person named may be a subject of the German Empire, an American citizen, or may belong to any other nationality. He is selected in each particular case as an individual, who, from character, residence, or other qualification, will fairly propound the questions and certify the answers. His serv ices are purely ministerial and entirely voluntary. He has no power to compel the attendance of witnesses or to punish them for contempt. No authority is given except to put questions and certify answers, and no other is claimed for him. The same proceedings are taken and the same rule applies in every case, whoever the parties to the action may be. The fact that the Government is a party or has an interest in the action in no respect alters the rule. It is a proceeding in the interest |