No. 111.
Mr. Vignaud to Mr. Frelinghuysen.
Legation of
the United States,
Paris, October 27, 1884.
(Received November 12.)
No. 651.]
Sir: Your dispatch, No. 477, of date March 25,
1884, instructed Mr. Morton to lay before the French Government the case of
Mr. John B. Foichat, a naturalized American citizen of French origin, who,
while visiting his native town, was arrested and subjected to harsh
treatment for having failed to report himself for military service when he
was of age, and who, for this reason, claims an indemnity.
Mr. Morton, however, was requested to present this case only if the facts
upon which it rested were correct. These facts having been found to be so,
Mr. Morton laid the whole matter before M. Jules Ferry in a communication
dated April 22, 1884, embodying in substance, and partly in form, your own
clear and forcible statement of the case.
M. Ferry’s answer came to hand only a few days ago; it is dated October 27,
and I send herewith a copy and a translation of it, together with a copy of
Mr. Morton’s note.
The French Government admits substantially the facts of the case.
Notwithstanding his American papers, Foichat was arrested on the charge of
being an “insoumis.” He was handcuffed and confined
in prison; but the French Government denies that these facts entitle Foichat
to any compensation, and maintains the ground it has invariably taken each
time the legation has interfered on behalf of American citizens of French
birth who had been naturalized after military service was due, viz, that
every Frenchman is liable to be called to perform military service, and that
to refuse to discharge this important public duty is an offense punishable
by law, which the acquisition of foreign citizenship cannot remove,
particularly when the change of nationality has taken place for the very
purpose of avoiding the performance of that duty, which is generally the
case.
Pressure of work prevents me from adding anything to this communication. I
propose, however, to send by our next pouch a dispatch reviewing the whole
subject of American citizens of French origin who have not performed
military service in France.
I have, &c.,
[Inclosure 1 in No. 651.]
Mr. Morton to
M. Ferry.
Legation of the United States,
Paris, April 22,
1884.
Sir: I am directed by my Government to call the
attention of your excellency to the case of Mr. John B. Foichat, an
American citizen who claims due reparation for the harsh treatment to
which he was subjected while visiting France last year.
It appears from the sworn statement of Foichat, a copy of which is
herewith inclosed, that he was born at Bordeaux (Savoie) on the 4th of
January, 1853, In 1870, when seventeen years of age, he went to the
United States and has ever since resided in the State of Indiana. In
May, 1883, he was regularly admitted to citizenship of the United States
by the circuit court of the State of Indiana for Parke County. In
August, 1883, he obtained a passport from the Department of State, with
a view of revisiting his native town and his relations there, and
arrived in Bordeaux in September, 1883. On the 22d of November
following, he was arrested on the charge of having failed, when he
attained the age of 21 years, to report for military service. He
exhibited
[Page 175]
his passport,
certificate of naturalization, and demanded to be released and allowed
to proceed on his way. These papers, together with his private papers,
were seized and retained by the officers, and he was kept in the
military prison at Chambéry two days and three nights; he was then
handcuffed and taken to the military prison at Grenoble to be tried by
court-martial; then he was imprisoned in a cell and his valuables all
taken from him. He was detained at Grenoble for four days. His case at
last reached the ear of B. F. Peixotto, esq., United States consul at
Lyons, and through the efforts of that officer Foichat was released on
the ground of his American citizenship.
The correctness of this statement having been confirmed by the American
consul at Lyons, who took pleasure, however, in acknowledging the
courtesy of the high officials to whom he applied in behalf of Foichat,
complaining only of the action of subordinates, I must concur in the
view expressed by the Department of State, “that aside from the mere
personal inconvenience and expense to which Mr. Foichat was subjected,
the transaction involved an unwarranted and seemingly unnecessary
indignity offered to a citizen of the United States which this
Government cannot suffer to pass unnoticed.”
I am, therefore, instructed by the honorable Secretary of State to
present this claim to your excellency, with the earnest request on the
part of my Government “that the subject may receive from that of France
early and just consideration, and that a reasonable pecuniary indemnity
will be awarded and paid on behalf of Mr. Foichat.” “I cannot allow
myself to doubt,” says Mr. Frelinghuysen, in words which I am glad to
quote, “that the justice of the claim will be at once recognized by the
French Government, animated as that Government is by the highest
sentiments of liberality and fairness.”
I avail, &c.,
[Inclosure 2 in No.
651.—Translation.]
M. Ferry to Mr.
Vignaud.
Sir: On the 22nd of April Mr. Morton drew my
attention to the rigorous measures which Mr J. B. Foichat, of French
origin, a naturalized citizen of the United States, had incurred at the
hands of the French authorities during the latter months of the past
year. Mr. Foichat, born on the 4th of January, 1853, at Bordeaux
(Savoie), went in 1870 to the United States, where, he acquired, in
1883, naturalization. Upon his return to France, at the end of the same
year, he was arrested in his native town for insubmission (insoumission), then set at liberty upon the
intervention of the American consul at Lyons. On account of these facts,
the Government of the United States considered that a pecuniary
compensation should be granted to him.
Allow me to recall in the first instance, that upon principle we have
constantly refused to admit that a Frenchman, naturalized in a foreign
country, can be exempted if he returns to France from being answerable
for the offense of insubmission, when the naturalization has taken place
subsequently to the existence of the offense. You will understand that
we cannot abandon this jurisprudence, which is dictated by a question of
public order of a most important character, and against which the
Government of the United States would be all the less founded in
protesting, as it is in conformity with one of the principal provisions
which appear in the treaties of naturalization concluded by it with
certain powers.
The treaty signed on the 22d of February, 1868, between the United States
and Prussia, stipulates in fact (article 2) that a naturalized citizen
of either of the contracting parties, in case of return to the territory
of origin, can be proceeded against and punished in consequence of acts,
qualified as offenses or crime by the laws of such country, which he may
have committed before his emigration, unless, according to the laws of
his country of origin, he enjoys the privilege of prescription.
An inquiry was none the less ordered to be made with reference to the
complaints made by Mr. Foichat. I have the honor to communicate to you
herewith copy of the report of General Carteret Trecourt, military
governor of Lyons, stating the result of the same. As you will perceive,
from the perusal of this document, the grievances complained of by Mr.
Foichat; are in no wise justified, and do not give him, in consequence,
any right to the compensation he solicits.
I shall be much obliged if you will acquaint Mr. Frelinghuysen with the
reasons which do not permit us to comply with his request, and to have
the goodness to insist especially upon the juridical considerations,
which oblige us to reserve expressly the right to prosecute, upon his
return to France, any individual charged with an infraction against our
military laws, committed previously to naturalization abroad.
Receive, &c.,
[Page 176]
[Inclosure 3 in No.
651.—Translation.]
General Carteret Trecourt, military governor of
Lyons, commander of fourteenth army corps, to the minister of
war.
Mr. Foichat having come to France in the month of September, 1883, that
is to say, hardly four months after his change of nationality, the
French authorities could not be notified that he was an American
subject; his name appeared therefore upon the register of
insubordinates.
Arrested on the 23d of November, he produced an American passport, but
this document was not sufficient to obtain his immediate release, the
gendarmerie, acting in virtue of a description No. 1, had to keep him in
custody, having no capacity to decide upon the authenticity or value of
the document submitted to them.
Escorted without any resistance before the recruiting commandant of
Chambéry, and then to the prison of this town, Mr. Foichat was not
subjected to any rigorous measures, the gendarmes, not having handcuffed
him, thus taking upon themselves to render as light as possible the
application of the general rule.
During his transfer, however, from the prison of Chambéry to the military
prison of Grenoble, the gendarmes applying in his case the precautionary
measures usual in such cases, thought fit to put on the handcuffs.
From the information obtained from the military prison of Grenoble, it
appears that Mr. Foichat was subjected to the ordinary regulations of
the establishment, and that he was not the object of any exceptional
measures.
With reference to the impediments, according to the complainant, to his
communicating with the consul of the United States at Lyons, it is
sufficient to state that on the 28th of November I had already been
applied to with reference to the claim of Mr. Foichat by the prefect of
the Isère, acting at the instance of the consul of the United
States.
Besides, as soon as the situation of this subordinate had been defined,
and that I had the proof of his nationality, I gave orders by telegraph
for him to be set at liberty, which took place on the 29th of
November.
