Sargent to Consul-General Vogeler, February 24, 1883

Mr. Sargent to Consul-General Vogeler.

Sir: Your esteemed letter concerning the case of the Staarbach brothers is received. The young men were born in the United States in 1857 and 1859 respectively, of a German-American father; returned with him, sometime before 1871, to Alsace, where they have since lived, they being then not over fourteen and twelve years old. The father became renaturalized as a German citizen. The authorities have summoned the sons to appear for military service, after repeated inquiries of them as to their intentions about going to America if they considered themselves as American citizens—the young men responding that they claim to be American citizens, but declining to go, or to fix any time for going there, and the authorities at last taking the decisive action above stated.

The question raised in this case is now pending [in] the imperial foreign office in another case, and I have referred it to the Department for instructions. It is simply this: Does the naturalization of an American citizen in Germany, by which he becomes a German subject, work the naturalization of his family, including his minor sons who are then present with him in Germany? For the purpose of this question a native and a naturalized American may be held as on the same footing.

By American law and practice the minor sons of a German naturalized in the United States, if then with him, become Americans. Do not the minor sons of such an American who may be naturalized a German become German subjects, if with him at the time in Germany? Can we insist on one doctrine for ourselves and another for Germany? It seems to me not.

Had these youths promptly, on gaining their freedom at majority, gone to the United States and assumed the duties and functions of American citizenship, any defect in their title to this would probably have been passed sub silentio. Instead of so doing they have settled down here, engaged in business, perhaps married and ratified their father’s acts by their own except so far as indefinite declarations go, which were made merely to avoid service to the country whose protection they seek and enjoy.

Until corrected by the Department, I must hold the American citizenship of these parties to be doubtful at least. The foreign office considers such persons as naturalized with the father, according to the American doctrine. I do not see how these young men can escape military service if they remain in the country.

There is another complication in their case: The foreign office has not yet formally admitted, and has heretofore denied, that Alsace-Lorraine is covered by the naturalization treaties which were made with the original separate States before the Empire and before the acquisition of those provinces. If it should revive this consideration in this case, the only ground on which it would consider it would be one of national comity, which, of course, must be consistent with its own views of justice to itself. As already said, it looks upon youths so circumstanced as naturalized with the father; and its own rights and interests are involved not to surrender to us those whom it considers as its own subjects.

I may add that the United States has some right to be considered in this matter, and to require that those who expect to rely upon its protection in the sacred name of citizenship shall in some way, except by barren declarations to foreign officials, show their fidelity to it.

I have, &c.,