Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

my note of March 31 only the four Italians who were undoubtedly subjects of the King. But still I never had a thought of abandoning the other five if it should be found that they had only their first papers. In fixing the indemnity at $25,000 the United States Government must, therefore, certainly have admitted that those five persons were Italian subjects, in spite of the fact that they had procured their first naturalization papers.

“I think that I have shown by the foregoing remarks that the particular points in your excellency's note, which I have examined with all sincerity of purpose, are insufficient to induce my Government to desist from taking that just action which is called for by the murder of the Italian subjects at Hahnville; nor can they in any way disprove the incontrovertible fact of the Italian nationality of Arena, Venturella, and Salardino. Besides, this fact was immediately admitted by the judicial authorities of 'Louisiana themselves, in their report of August 15, and, on the ground of that report, by the Department of State in the telegram sent by it to the governor on the 29th of August. Like the said five persons who were lynched at New Orleans in 1891; like those of 1895 at Walsenburg, Arena, Venturella, and Salardino were Italian subjects. And it was precisely owing to this undoubted personal status of theirs that I had to insist in our interviews and the high officials who took your place temporarily last summer likewise adhered to them—that “in dealing with the present case the New Orleans lynching of 1890 and the Colorado murders of 1895 should serve as precedents.'

“ In view of the proven Italian nationality of the three subjects of the King who were lynched at Hahnville, I do not see, in conclusion, any other way of arriving at a legal, just, and final settlement of the dispute than that indicated by the treaties, the only one consistent with the dignity of great nations.

“ The entire solution of the difficulty is found in the treaty in force between the United States and Italy; and by virtue of the treaty itself, and with the confidence which I have long cherished of the firm resolution of the President and the United States Government to have international agreements strictly observed, I have the honor to again present the request which I have already repeatedly presented to your excellency, that the guilty parties be sought and brought to justice; that steps be taken to prevent the repetition of such atrocious crimes, and that, at the same time, just and adequate compensation be made to the families of the victims."

In a subsequent note, Baron Fava said:

“I did not fail to draw the attention of my Government upon the statement made in your note of November 27 ultimo that the three Italian subjects lynched at Hahnville, La., ' by qualifying and acting as electors had, according to the constitution and laws of Louisiana as interpreted by its supreme court, become citizens of that State.'

“I premise that even if the three Italians had voted, which is not yet proved, my Government hardly understands that they could become citizens of a State of the Union without being citizens of the United States. The Federal laws having prescribed a uniform rule of naturalization, and the power of naturalization being exclusively in Congress, the Italian Government is entitled to think that the laws of Louisiana, however peculiar they may be in respect to citizenship, can not be recognized by a foreign power. Besides, the very fact that the article 185 of the constitution of Louisiana says that 'any foreigner may vote who has taken out his first papers, is conclusive proof that any foreigner who does so vote is still an alien.

"Moreover, you are aware, Mr. Secretary of State, that in the early settlement of the Western States of the Union, many of the legislatures expressly granted the right to vote to aliens who had declared their intention to become citizens, and many thousands of such aliens so voted. This was a common practice. It was never pretended, however, that they became citizens until they took out their final papers. The privilege of voting was a mere permission given by the State, which no one claimed created citizenship; on the contrary, the fact expressly appeared that they were not such citizens. Under these circumstances they remained aliens so far as the National Government was concerned, and. were entitled to be protected as such aliens.

“ The recent cases in Louisiana were not different. The three men lynched were Italian subjects beyond all question. If they voted wrongfully, they were still aliens; if they voted rightfully under the laws of the State while aliens, they lost none of their rights as such aliens under the treaty of the United States with Italy.

"As far as it concerns the suggestion made by you in your aforesaid note whether the Italian Government can or can not consider as its subjects those Italians to whom it is permitted to vote in the States of the Union, allow me to observe that the solution of this question belongs solely to the Italian legislator and to Italian law. As a matter of fact I can add that the Federal Government has always considered and still considers as citizens of the United States the numerous Americans who in Hawaii take a prominent part in the political affairs and vote openly at the elections of those islands.

“I feel confident that the additional considerations which I have now the honor to submit to your enlightened and impartial examination will still better convince you of the ground and the justice of the request I had the occasion to renew by my two recent notes of December 31, 1896, and of the 10th instant, to which I refer."

By the deficiency appropriations act of July 19, 1897, Congress appropriated the sum of $6,000, to be paid to the Italian Government, as full indemnity" to the heirs of three of its subjects, Salvatore Arena, Giuseppe Venturella, and Lorenzo Salardino."

For the preliminary discussions of the case, see For. Rel. 1896, 396–403,

403–404. 'or the discussion of the question of nationality, as above quoted, see

Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Baron Fava, Italian amb., Nov. 27, 1896, For. Rel. 1896, 107, 410–11; Baron Fava to Mr. Olney, Dec.

31, 1896, and Jan. 27, 1897, For. Rel. 1896, 412, 414418, 421-422. For the act of July 19, 1897, see 30 Stat. 105, 106.

6. RESIDENCE.

1) FIVE YEARS' RULE.

$ 388.

Rev. Stat., $ 2165, providing that the court naturalizing an alien must be satisfied that he has resided in the United States for five years, and within the State where the court is held for one year, does not require the last year of residence before the application for naturalization to be in the State where the application is made, as it is sufficient that applicant has lived for any year in that State.

C'handler 1. Wartman, 6 N. J. Law J. 301.

The five years' residence required by the statutes means actual residence in the United States; and a person can not be considered

as having been constructively in this country during the past five years merely because he has been in the employment of this Government [i. e., as interpreter, or dragoman, of the American legation at Constantinople) in Turkey during that time. The fiction of extraterritoriality can not be carried to this extent."

Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Terrell, min. to Turkey, Nov. 2, 1893,

For. Rel. 1893, 701. The person in question, Mr. Gargiulo, had made a declaration of inten

tion in the United States, but soon afterwards returned to Turkey

in the official capacity above mentioned. "A constructive residence

is held not to answer the requirements of the statute. Your proposed residence in Japan can not, therefore, be made available for naturalization purposes."

(Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. de la Camp, July 25, 1877, 119 MS. Dom.

Let. 262.) The process of naturalization must be performed in the United States.

(Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr Kasson, min. to Germany,

Jan. 15, 188, For. Rel. 1885, 394, 395.) See supra, p. 329. It has been intimated that a sojourn of a native Porto Rican in Porto

Rico, after declaration of intention, would not interrupt his resiH. Doc. 551-vol 3--23

dence in the United States." (Mr. Ilay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Miranda, June 10, 1899, 237 MS. Dom. Let. 466.) The same thing would, however, potentially be true of a transient sojourn anywhere.

“ No alien shall be admitted to become a citizen who has not for Meaning of "con

the continued term of five years next preceding his tinued term."

admission resided within the United States."

Rev. Stat., $ 2170; act of June 26, 1848, 9 Stat. 240.
This provision is subject to the exceptions noted below.
The phrase “ continued term of five years ” means residence in the

general legal sense." (Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bancroft, min.
to Prussia, Sept. 20, 1870, MS. Inst. Prussia, XV. 157.)

“ Your despatch No. 158 has been received, together with a copy of the correspondence you have had with the Federal Council in relation to Dominie Madini, now residing in Switzerland.

" It appears that he is an Austrian subject by birth, and that after having taken part in the Lombard revolution, in 1848, he came to this country and legally declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States. In the year 1852, and before he had been long enough in this country to be entitled to naturalization, he returned to Europe and settled in Switzerland, where he has since resided, for the alleged purpose of collecting his fortune, which he has some prospect of being able to do, and then he designs to return and reside in the United States.

“Upon this state of facts you interposed in his behalf in order to procure from the Federal Council permission for him to remain in the Canton of Zurich, from which he had received notice to withdraw, and you suggest that a few words from this Department expressing to the Council its concurrence in the view taken in your note to that body on the subject would be of great utility.

“ The 12th section of the act of March 3d, 1813, for the regulation of seamen on board the public and private vessels of the United States, provides “That no person who shall arrive in the United States from and after the time when this act shall take effect, shall be admitted to become a citizen of the United States who shall not for the continued term of five years next preceding his admission as a foresaid have resided within the United States without being at any time during the said five years out of the territory of the United States.'

“ Under this statute it was held that any absence from the United States, however short, during the five years, even the landing from a steamboat in Canada, would prevent the applicant from obtaining his naturalization. Such an interpretation of it was deemed a hardship, and to deprive the law of this stringent feature, the act of June 26, 1818, was passed, repealing the words 'without being dur

ing the said five years out of the territory of the United States,' found in the last clause of the section above referred to.

“ The law as it now stands, therefore, requires that the applicant in order to be entitled to naturalization must have resided within the United States for the continued term of five years next preceding his admission as a citizen. This language wholly excludes the idea that the person may be allowed to go to another country and there make his domicil as long as it may suit his convenience and then return to the United States and avail himself of the time he had previously resided within their territory. . By Madini's departure from the United States before he was naturalized, becoming domiciled in another country and entering into business there, he relinquished all the advantages, whatever they might be, which he had gained by his temporary residence in the United States, and placed himself in relation to this Government on a footing with those foreigners who have never been within its territory. From these observations it will be perceived why the Department is unable to comply with your suggestion to express to the Federal Council regret at its declining to aid the interposition of an American legation in a case like that of Dominie Madini.”

Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Fay, No. 37, March 22, 1856, MS. Inst.

Switzerland, I. 47.
For the debates on the act of June 26, 1818, see Cong. Globe, Senate,

Dec. 14, 1847, and June 18, 1818; House, June 22, 1818: Cong. Globe,
30 Cong. 1 sess. 21, 8:54. See, also, Moore, Int. Arbitrations, łII. 2718.

M. N. was naturalized in the United States Nov. 29, 1875. It appeared that he obtained a passport as a citizen of the United States from the Department of State in 1870 on an application in which he was represented as a native of Pennsylvania, and that soon afterwards he returned to his native country, Switzerland, where, with the exception of one or two brief visits to the United States, he had since resided, engaged in business. From June, 1875, till 1882, he was a member of the municipal council of Chaux de Fonds. It was stated that the tenure of this office was not incompatible with alien status, but it appeared that it required a previous domicil of at least a year. It was held that the facts were incompatible with the continuous residence necessary to naturalization; and that on this ground, as well as on the ground of his action in obtaining a passport in 1870, he was not entitled to the interposition of the United States in respect of his arrest and imprisonment in Switzerland.

Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cramer, min. to Switzerland, No. 138,

May 6, 1885, MS. Inst. Switz. II. 251 ; to Mr. Winchester, min. to Switzerland, No. 33, Dec. 28, 1885, id. 295 ; to Mr. Sterne, April 20, 1886, 159 MS. Dom. Let. 674.

« AnteriorContinuar »