late as August 23, 1883, the German Government removed the fine. and attachment from Xavier Ehret, a naturalized Alsatian, upon whom these penalties had been imposed in his absence. "In 1887 a case arose affecting one Albert Bernhard, a citizen of the United States, who emigrated from Alsace-Lorraine in 1872. This case was somewhat peculiar, Bernhard having emigrated while the French civil code was still in force in Alsace. When he acquired citizenship, the German law of June 1, 1870, introduced as above stated into Alsace-Lorraine in 1873, prevailed for the inhabitants of those provinces. The German Government contended that Bernhard had not complied with these provisions, having neither obtained a dismissal from his German allegiance nor remained abroad ten years, and that he was therefore to be treated as a German subject. As this contention ignored the five years' treaty clause, the reply of the German Government appeared to assume nonapplicability of our North German treaty to Alsace-Lorraine. In an instruction sent by Mr. Bayard to Mr. Pendleton, No. 236, June 28, 1887, Bernhard's case is very fully discussed and incidentally the question of the applicability of the existing Bancroft treaty to Alsace-Lorraine is treated. Mr. Bayard said: [Here follows a long quotation from Mr. Bayard's instruction to Mr. Pendleton, of June 28, 1887, printed supra.] "From this time until the present no formal discussion of the question is found, although in various cases the German assertion of the nonapplicability of the treaties to the annexed Reichsland has been advanced with more or less distinctness. While no overt contestation of that position has been made by this Government, the foregoing review shows that for many years it has withheld formal confirmation of Mr. Fish's apparent admission that the treaties did not so apply. Your present dispatch is the latest and most formal announcement of the German contention. While, on the one hand, it may be said that the attitude of the United States has not been uniform, involving a reversal of the position assumed by Mr. Fish in 1873, it is clear, on the other hand, that until very recently the German attitude has been equally contradictory, the treaties having been virtually applied to Alsace-Lorraine during many years. "The question has not, however, been formally revived and presented by this Government of late, owing to the prospect of an early incorporation of Alsace and Lorraine into the Empire, either as constituents or as part of the territorial domain of one of the present constituents of the Empire. With such incorporation, of course, the question would find its ready disposition, either by the obvious and incontestable extension of any treaty between such incorporating State and the United States, or by express conventional arrangement which would then become proper and necessary. "The new ambassador to Germany will, as soon as conveniently practicable after reaching his post, make an examination of the gencral question, with a view to ascertaining whether the difficulties which Mr. Bancroft discerned in 1873 in the way of negotiating a general treaty of naturalization embracing the whole German Empire still exist, or, if existent, are removable. As to this the Department is unprepared at present to express an opinion. But with regard to the anomalous and peculiar position of Alsace and Lorraine, while still holding, as it must, that no sovereign government can be exempt from existing treaty obligations in respect to territory acquired by it, and believing that it is incumbent upon such sovereign to devise practical methods by which existing treaties may apply to such annexed domain, it is not indisposed to recognize the fact that in practically dealing with the questions involved exceptional difficulties may be found. It is evident, for instance, that existing treaties, even if held applicable to the Reichsland, would not find distinct application in the case of a native of Alsace-Lorraine who had emigrated while those provinces were under French rule, and after acquiring citizenship in the United States might return to them subsequent to their German annexation. So, too, the German position would seem, upon analysis, to be somewhat anomalous in respect to a native of Alsace or Lorraine emigrating and becoming an American citizen and subsequently visiting another State of the Empire with which the United States have positive stipulations in regard to the rights of naturalized subjects. "This Government can hardly be expected to advance or admit the proposition that our existing treaties of naturalization are not applicable to an Alsatian or Lorrainer in whatever part of Germany he may be found. The German contention is essentially local-based upon the peculiar relation of the annexed territory to the Empireand rests upon the paramount independence of the laws of Alsace and Lorraine alone in the absence of any convention binding those particular districts. This Government can not be expected to assent to any possible proposition that the local legislation of Alsace and LorLaine is paramount and executable in all the other constituent States of the Empire to the Supersess.on of our treaties with those States. This consideration is not, however, advanced by way of argument or protest, but simply as illustrating some of the difficulties environing the present situation of Alsace-Lorraine, under which that territory seems to have the remarkable status of an independent State, belon ing to an Empire, controlled as to its internal affairs by the legisli tion of the Imperial Parliament and yet not represented therein, noìresponsible for its conduct as an independent State toward other powers. As was aptly said by Mr. Bancroft in his dispatch No. 230, June 5, 1871, at the time when the bill was pending in the Imperial Parliament for establishing a government in the new province of Alsace and Lorraine: "Under the old German Empire the free States with their domain stood directly under the protection of the Emperor. In theory Alsace and Lorraine form a district belonging neither to Prussia nor to any other of the German States, standing directly not under the King of Prussia, but under the Emperor of Germany. An exact conformity of the old precedents would make of them a republic under the protectorate of the Emperor.' (Foreign Relations, 1871, p. 395.) "As those provinces now stand and have stood for years, they seem to enjoy a strangely admixed privilege of autonomy, protective control, and international irresponsibility." Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Jackson, chargé d'affaires ad interim at The foregoing instruction was occasioned by the contention of the German Mr. Jackson, acknowledging, March 21, 1896, the receipt of the foregoing instruction, observed that the treaty of 1828 with Prussia had always been considered by the German Government as applicable to the whole of the Empire, although it was made with but a single State. (For. Rel. 1896, 192.) "The German Government. holds that this treaty [of 1868 with the North German Union] does not extend to AlsaceLorraine; and it applies to those provinces the North German law of June 1, 1870, concerning the acquisition and the loss of confederate or state citizenship. By that law citizenship can be lost only by discharge upon petition, by decree of the authorities, by a ten years' residence abroad, or in virtue of a treaty upon five years' residence accompanied by naturalization abroad." Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Smith, Jan. 23, 1899, 234 MS. Dom. See, to the same effect. Mr. Day, Assist. Sec. of State to Mr. Hassen- "For a full elucidation of the subject of the applicability of the Bancroft See Heintzman's case, For. Rel. 1892, 177, 180, 182. The German position was reaffirmed in the case of Jonas Lippmann, whose property was attached for a military fine, but the property was afterwards released on other grounds. (For. Rel. 1897, 232-237.) The German Government, while maintaining that a native of Alsace did not come within the treaty of 1868, stated that, in view of the interposition of the United States in his behalf, the authorities of Alsace-Lorraine would release him from his allegiance if he would so request and pay a fine imposed on him in the imperial courts at Strasburg in 1895 for evasion of military service. This done, he would be permitted to return to Alsace on a visit. (For. Rel. 1903, 442-444.) That the German Government still maintains its position with regard to Alsace-Lorraine, and requires the release from nationality in such cases to be made the subject of a petition, see the case of Emil Vibert, For. Rel. 1904, 317 et seq., citing For. Rel. 1897, 230-231, and Mr. Olney to Mr. Jackson, March 3, 1896, For. Rel. 1896, 187, supra. Correspondence of (4) PRACTICE OF EXPULSION. $393. "The undersigned, envoy, etc., of the United States of America, begs to recall the attention of Dr. Busch, under secretary of state, in charge of the imperial foreign office, 1884-1887. etc., to the note which the undersigned had the honor to receive from the foreign office under date of December 31, 1884. "The undersigned, in making acknowledgment of its reception, reserved in its contents for the appreciation of his Government. “While the subject of the note involved the rights of Americanborn sons whose German-born fathers had during their minority returned with them to Germany to reside permanently, a declaration is added respecting the nationality of the father, which seems to have been made without a sufficient consideration of the language of the treaty of 1868. "That declaration is understood as follows: "As regards the fathers of such sons, no doubt can exist that they are to be regarded as having renounced their naturalization by a longer sojourn than one of two years, pursuant to the treaties regulating nationality of 1868, concluded with the United States." "The Government of the undersigned cannot find the reasons. which would justify its concurrence in this view. "In its judgment the treaty cannot of itself convert an American citizen into a German, nor a German into an American, against his will. Even the renunciation of one citizenship does not of itself create another. "It does not profess to make provision for a resumption of a citizenship previously lost or renounced. Its object was rather to recog nize the obligation of a new citizenship which had been lawfully acquired in the other country. "The fourth article of the treaty of 1868, in its first clause, it is true, recognizes the renunciation of the newly acquired citzenship by a total abandonment of the intention to return to the country where his new citizenship was acquired. But it does not affirm the restoration of the original allegiance. On the other hand, there are many naturalized Americans who reside for more than two years in Germany with the constant intent to return to the United States. They often carry on a business in both countries, beneficially increasing the commercial relations between the two. "These persons, however long residing in the original country, with the intent of later returning to the adopted country, have always been regarded by the United States as being still citizens of the country which they adopted. And such an interpretation, it is supposed, had received the acquiescence of the German Government, in view of the optional language of the third clause of the fourth article, which employs a different expression from that of the first clause. Such a practical construction has been one of the most beneficial results of the treaty. For it has served to cultivate the relation of commerce and friendship between the two countries. "The Government of the United States receives with satisfaction the opinion declared by the German Imperial Government which recognizes that the American children of parents naturalized in the United States have an unconditional and durable American citizenship. "On the other hand, it learns with regret that the Imperial Government regards itself as justified by international principles in refusing the sojourn in Germany of these native-born American citizens, although they are, as such, obedient to the laws and ordinances there prevailing. In these cases it is only a question of native citizens of the United States. There can be no distinction as to them based on national birth of the parents. Such children are not within the provisions of the treaty of 1868. This refusal of the right of peaceful sojourn, therefore, seems to the American Government to be in contravention of the spirit and even the letter of other treaties. "Thus, by the first article of the treaty of 1828 with Prussia, it is provided that the inhabitants of the respective states shall be at liberty to sojourn and reside in all parts whatsoever of said territories, in order to attend to their affairs; and they shall enjoy to that effect the same security and protection as natives of the country wherein they reside, on condition of submitting to the laws and ordinances there prevailing.' "It can hardly be expected that the United States Government can acquiesce in a rule which, by administrative order, in either country, |