From these words it appears evident that Mr. Blaine had in mind the case of an Italian who after having become naturalized in the United States should have commoitted a crime there and then taken refuge in the Kingdom; in which case be supposed that the Italian Government would desire to reserve the right to refuse his extradition. There is no ground for such a view of the case, and the Italian Government assures that of the United States that Mr. Blaine's interpretation is not in accord either with the text of the article now under consideration nor with the intentions of Italy.

The proposed article was copied from Article iv of the convention of February 5, 1873, between Italy and Great Britain, and was reproduced in that of 'November 5-17, 1877, with Greece, and in the other of April 4, 1879, with Uruguay, and it never gave rise to doubts or objections whatever. A similar pact was stipulated by Italy in Article xi of the convention of good neighborhood between it and the Republic of San Marino of March 27, 1872, and in Article is of the convention of extradition with Brazil, as was also done by England and France in their convention of extradition of August 14, 1876.

Nevertheless, in order to render the agreement more clear by excluding a priori any possibility of understanding it in the sense supposed by Mr. Blaine, the Italian Government presents Article w in the following form:

“Citizenship acquired in one of the two contracting states by a person charged with or convicted of crime who previous to his naturalization has committed a crime which is punishable in the other state, shall not prevent his arrest and surrender." [The rest as origmally proposed.] All doubt being thus removed, the article can not give rise to any objections, both because it is nothing but the corollary of the general principle of international law, according to which naturalization does not impair previously acqnired rights, and especially because its effect will be to extend the cases of the territoriality of the penal law by which the legislation of the American Union is wholly inspired.

II.-Convention of naturalization on the model of that between the United States and



The Italian Government adhered to Article I of the convention of naturalization between the United States and Belgium; but it observed that it would be well to insert a clause for the purpose of making it clear that citizenship obtained through naturalization is not acquired by anyone who does not make application for it. This is done to place so important a matter beyond the reach of the contingencies of legislation. In his note of November 18, 1890, Mr. Blaine declined to accept this slight addition, observing that the clause was superfluous because the laws of the United States which relate to citizenship are all based upon the principle of free consent. Although for this very reason the United States Government should have had . no objection to the explicit statement in the proposed article of such a principle of liberty, which redounds to the horor of both States, still, in order to put this article in a shape that will be more acceptable to the United States Government, the Italian ministry proposes that it shall be worded as follows:

“Citizens of the United States who have made application for naturalization and have become naturalized in Italy shall be considered by the United States as Italian citizens. Reciprocally, Italians who have made application for naturalization and become naturalized in the United States shall be considered by Italy as citizens of the United States,"


The objections raised in Mr. Blaine's note of November 18, 1890, against Article II of the convention between Belgium and the United States, which reserves the full exercise of penal action against the citizens of one State who have become naturalized in the other when they return to their native country, render the suppression of this article advisable. It is well to observe, however, in justification of the Italian Government, that the suggestion was inade by that of the United States that its naturalization convention with Belgium should be taken as a model, the said convention containing this very Article II, against the provisions of which objection was afterwards made by Mr. Blaine.


The Italian Government could not accept any article that in its nature should be at variance with the provisions concerning recruiting for the royal army.


This article, which, owing to the suppression of the two preceding ones, becomes Article II of the draft of the convention hereto appended between the United States and Italy, is accepted in full by the Italian Government, which also accepts Article V, which becomes Article III in the aforesaid draft.

WASHINGTON, January, 1894.

Mr. Gresham to Baron Fava.


Washington, June 13, 1894. EXCELLENCY: Your note of the 22d of January of this year, inclosing a draft of a proposed agreement supplementary to the extradition treaty existing between the United States and Italy, and a draft of a proposed naturalization convention between the two Governments, together with your comments thereon, have been carefully considered.

In reply I have the honor to inform you that the President is unwill. ing to enter into any treaty of extradition which will exclude citizens or subjects of either country from its operation.

No good reason is perceived why citizens of the United States who commit crimes in Italy, or Italian subjects who commit crimes in the United States, should not, if they take refuge in their own country, be delivered up by its authorities to the country whose laws they have violated. A refusal to surrender them would result in the case of Americans committing crime in Italy in an utter failure of justice; and though Italy may undertake to punish her subjects who, after committing crime here, return within her jurisdiction, yet the means of ascertaining the truth and doing justice must under such conditions always be difficult and often unattainable.

I regret to say also it is impossible for this Government to accept your views regarding a naturalization convention.

In the first place, it is proposed by you as essential that citizenship by naturalization in this country sball only be conferred upon persons who make application therefor. This would exclude Italian women intermarrying with American citizens, who, under our law, thereby become themselves American citizens. . It would likewise exclude minor children of Italians who became naturalized in this country-such children under our law becoming citizens of this country, if dwelling here, by the mere fact of the naturalization of the father.

Your excellency, in conversation, has called this Department's attention to the provision of the Italian civil code declaring the wife and minor children of Italian citizens who have lost their nationality to be foreigners, unless they continue to reside in the Kingdom. This, you think, should remove the objection above stated. But can Italians lose their nationality in the view of the Italian Government, except with the consent of that Government, or in pursuance of treaties made by it with other Governments ? And would not the treaty determine and limit the status of citizenship, notwithstanding the law of Italy? Such, I think, would be the case from the Italian point of view. I a therefore, constrained to the opinion that the principle you contend for, viz, that citizenship by naturalization shall only be acquired by those who make application for it, being in direct conflict with your civil code, should not find a place in a naturalization treaty.

To incorporate this provision in the treaty would be to deny, by implication at least, to the wives and minor children of Italians who

am, apply for and obtain naturalization here, the right and recognition as American citizens to which, by Italian law, they are entitled.

Your insistence upon another point also imposes an obstacle to the conclusion of a naturalization treaty. I refer to the claim of right on the part of His Majesty's Government to refuse to recognize naturalization in this country as exempting former Italian subjects returning to Italy from the military duties imposed by the laws of that country, or from penalties for failure to meet military obligations. This Govern. ment could not agree to permit Italy to exercise such right, except where the obligation bad actually accrued before the emigration of the party to this country.

I beg to call your attention to Article I of our naturalization treaty with Belgium, Article II of our naturalization treaty with AustriaHungary, and Article iv of our naturalization treaty with the North German Union. To the latter your attention is particularly directed as meeting any suggestions which might be made of naturalization being acquired here with the view of evading military duty on return. ing to Italy.

This Government would be willing to conclude a treaty of natural. ization with Italy on the basis of these articles. But it must emphatically decline to recognize the right of that Government to the military service of Italians who, after being naturalized here, return to Italy, still retaining their American citizenship. Accept, etc.,



Baron Fava to Mr. Gresham.


Washington, November 27, 1894. MR. SECRETARY OF STATE: Basing their action on the prohibition of importation which is now in force in the Kingdom, the American customs authorities levy upon salt from Sicily and Sardinia the duty established in paragraph 608 of the act of August 28, 1894, which is referred to in circular No. 123 of the Treasury Department.

In point of fact, however, the prohibition of importation in question does not extend to the two islands of Sicily and Sardinia, and the consequence is that, while salt from the United States may be imported into Sicily and Sardinia duty free, Sicilian and Sardinian salt is obliged to pay duty on its arrival in the United States.

I consequently have the honor, in pursuance of instructions received from His Majesty's Government, to call your excellency's attention to this disparity of usage which inures to the detriment of an Italian product, and I do not doubt that, fully sharing my views with regard to the principle of strict equity on which this complaint is based, your excellency will be pleased to use your good offices with the honorable Secretary of the Treasury to the end that he may, without delay, issue the necessary instructions for the free admission of salt from Sicily and Sardinia, since this will be entirely in harmony with the privilege accorded to the same article when imported from the United States into those two islands. Be pleased to accept, etc.,

Mr. Gresham to Baron Fava.


Washington, December 10, 1894. EXCELLENCY: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 27th ultimo, and to inform you in reply that inasmuch as it appears from the statements therein contained that the importation of salt into Sicily and Sardinia is not prohibited, and that salt imported from the United States is admitted free of duty, the collectors of customs at the principal ports of the United States were, on the 7th instant, instructed to admit salt imported from those islands to entry free of duty. Accept, Mr. Ambassador, etc.,



Mr. Uhl to Baron Fava.


Washington, May 24, 1894. EXCELLENCY: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 20th instant, proposing that the consuls of Italy in the United States be authorized, as you state U. S. consuls already are in Italy, to settle the estates of their deceased fellow countrymen after being notified of their demise by the local authorities. You suggest that this be done with the view of preventing such irregularities as were referred to in your note of the 3d instant, relating to the estate of Rafaele Pisani, at Brownsville, Tex.

In reply, I beg to say that the United States has never entered into any treaty granting to the consuls of foreign countries, in this country, such authority as that you suggest should be given to the consuls of Italy. The entire question of the administration, settlement, and distribution of decedent's estates in this country is under the control of the respective States. It is for this reason that the Federal Govern.' ment encounters special difficulty in procuring notice to be given by the local authorities to the consuls of Italy of the death of their fellow countrymen.

The difficulty is increased by the fact that the local courts where estates are administered are frequently remote from the place where the nearest consular officer is stationed. For example, in the vast territory covered by the State of Texas the only consular officer of the Italian Government is located at Galveston.

These considerations compel me, though with much regret, to dissent from the opinion entertained by you that the Italian consuls should, by international agreement, be given the authority you desire for them.

I may observe, however, that I think it highly probable the local courts of the States, in cases where foreigners die within their jurisdiction intestate and without heirs or creditors, would, upon application of the consul of the decedent's country, residing in their jurisdiction, grant him the administration of the estate. Accept, etc.,


Acting Secretary.


Mr. Gresham to Baron Fava.



Washington, May 7, 1894. DEAR BARON FAVA: Referring to your personal note to me of the 19th ultimo, in regard to the condition of the Italian immigrants who fall into the hands of speculators, I have the pleasure to inclose for information

copy of a letter from Mr. Carlisle in response to the communication which I addressed to him on the subject.

In addition, permit me to refer to my colleague's statement that “under the alien contract-labor law, if proper evidence could be procured, these immigrants could be prevented from landing, and the padroni bankers or employés could be punished for bringing them here under contract." Mr. Carlisle shows how difficult it is to obtain from 1 he immigrants themselves information which would enable the rigid requirements of our law to be enforced as respects the padroni.

This suggests that a remedy might lie, to a great extent, with the Italian consuls, who, being better situated to ascertain from their deluded countrymen the practices to which they have been subjected, could doubtless bring to the knowledge of the Treasury officers sufficient data upon which to act in enforcement of our laws in this regard. Should they do so, I can assure you of the most cordial cooperation of our agents.

I quite agree with Mr. Carlisle touching the impracticability of meeting the problem through specially organized bureaus of labor.

Feeling sure that my colleague's views will commend themselves to your good judgment, I am, etc.,


Mr. Carlisle to Mr. Gresham.


Washington, May 4, 1894. (Received May 5.) SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge your favor transmitting a personal note from the Italian ambassador at this capital, pointing out the objectionable character of the contracts made with Italian immigrants by the “padroni,” and urging our Government to take steps to prevent their enforcement, and suggesting the establishment of bureaus of labor recognized by the Government.

In reply I have to say that the subject of what is known as the pad. rone system, by which Italian immigrants voluntarily surrender their individual liberty to designing men, in order to procure money to pay their passage to the United States, and enter into contracts to pay them for obtaining work, whereby they become personal serfs, controlled by rapacious men who rob them of a large part of the fruits of their labor, has received the serious attention of this Department and the Congress of the United States; and the necessity of the adoption of some effective measure for the suppression of these practices is generally recognized. You can assure the ambassador of my willing. ness to cooperate with his Government to the full extent of the power of this Department in eradicating the evil.

« ForrigeFortsett »