ment appears to be that the obligation of military service, accruing before naturalization, is a personal obligation to be discharged if the party return to Italian jurisdiction, unless he be found exempt by reason of age or personal infirmity. (Mr. Wharton, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Lewis, August 5, 1890, 178 MS. Dom. Let. 505.) Mr. Dougherty, chargé at Mexico, enclosed to the Department of State with his No. 1084 of Oct. 14, 1892, a copy and translation of a treaty on nationality between Italy and Mexico, the ratifications of which were exchanged Aug. 17, 1892. (114 MS. Desp. from Mexico.) "If, as you write, you are a citizen of the United States, this Government will require of the Government of Italy, of which country you say you are a native, any rights which may have been conceded to the United States by treaty, or which may be due to their citizens pursuant to public law. There is no naturalization treaty between this Government and that of Italy; but it is the purpose of this Government to insist in such cases that a naturalized citizen is entitled to the same exemption from military service as our native citizens would be in like circumstances. It is proper, however, that you should be informed that the Government of Italy is understood to claim that, in the absence of a treaty, the rights of a naturalized Italian there must be regarded as governed by the municipal law, which, as is supposed, does not exempt Italian born, naturalized abroad, from service in the army of Italy," Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Ennis, Feb. 7, 1879, 126 MS. Dom. “The experience of the Department is that natives of Italy returning there, and held to service in the army by Italian law, are required to complete the term of such service. If you are naturalized citizens of the United States, you can procure passports which will protect you, so long as you remain outside of the jurisdiction of the Italian Government. Should you, however, venture within such jurisdiction and so be compelled to service in the army, the Department cannot assure you, in the absence of treaty stipulations, that any remonstrance it might make in your behalf would be successful." Mr. Hitt, Assist. Sec. of State, to Messrs. Donati & Bro., Sept. 5, 1881, 139 MS. Dom. Let. 57. "The Government of Italy does not recognize foreign naturalization as extinguishing the obligation of its former subjects to military service; nor has that Government any treaty stipulations with the United States which in any way modify the case so far as our citizens are concerned. If, therefore, such native, so naturalized, returns to the jurisdiction to which he was once subject, the American passport which will be given him, on proper application, will ensure the earnest attention of our diplomatic and consular officers in case there may Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. De Pierre, Dec. 16, 1883, 149 MS. See, also, same to same, Jan. 23, 1885, 154 MS. Dom. Let. 46. "Information was received here last autumn, from the United States minister at Rome, in the case of a similarly situated native Italian in Kentucky, that such native would be held on his return to Italy as subject to the conscription. The ministry of war at Rome claims that the fact of his having become a citizen of the United States, does not exempt the enquirer, (who, it may be added, was also a minor on the date of his leaving Italy), from the obligations that he has toward the military laws' of that country." Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dunham, Dec. 29, 1884, 153 MS. The case above referred to, in Kentucky, was that of Mr. Lanciotti, in In view of this case, the Department "cannot encourage such former native subjects to place themselves within the military jurisdiction mentioned." (Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Oishie, Feb. 4, 1887, 163 MS. Dom. Let. 54; to Mr. Sayers, Feb. 16, 1887, id. 168; to Mr. Comba, May 10, 1887, 164 MS. Dom. Let. 127.) "Under that article [12, Italian Civil Code] the Italian Government, against the earnest protest of this Government, has claimed the right to hold its former subjects to military service in case of their return to Italy, although they have become citizens of this country. (See Foreign Relations, 1890, page 536 et seq.) Signor Damiani, the Italian under secretary of state, states the Italian claim thus: That the duty to serve in the army arises from the explicit regulations of the Italian law, which do not exempt from military service anyone who has lost or voluntarily relinquished Italian citi-'. 6 zenship.' In proper cases this Government will continue to protest against this claim as it has done heretofore, but in the absence of a treaty stipulation with respect thereto the present prospects of a favorable results are not promising." Mr. Foster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Mayo, Dec. 19, 1892, 189 MS. Dom. Let. 489, in reply to the inquiry of a naturalized American citizen of Italian origin, who stated that he came to the United States at the age of thirteen. See, in a similar sense, Mr. Foster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Caretti, Jan. 26, 1893, 190 MS. Dom. Let. 131. The case referred to, in Foreign Relations, 1890, 536 et seq., is that of Nicolino Mileo, which in its earlier stage attracted much attention. It subsequently appeared that some of Mileo's allegations were unfounded, and the correspondence ended with an expression by the Department of State of the hope that a naturalization treaty might be negotiated. The opinion was expressed that article 12 would not apply to the sons of a naturalized citizen of the United States of Italian origin, who were born in the United States after his naturalization, for the following reasons: Article 4, Title I., of the Civil Code provides that the son whose father is a citizen is likewise a citizen; but article 6 provides: "A person born in a foreign country of a father who has lost his citizenship before the birth of the son, is considered as a foreigner. He may, however, elect Italian citizenship, provided he makes a declaration to that effect according to the foregoing article and establishes his domicil in the Kingdom within a year from the time of such declaration. Nevertheless, if he has accepted a public office in the Kingdom, or has served or is serving in the Italian army or navy, or has otherwise complied with the provisions of the military law without claiming exemption on the ground of his being a foreigner, he shall be considered as a citizen." One of the means designated under article 2 by which Italian citizenship may be lost is that of becoming a citizen of a foreign country. The father, therefore, although he continued, by article 12, to be subject to military obligations, lost by his naturalization in the United States his Italian citizenship; and his children, born in the United States after his naturalization, could not be said to have lost Italian citizenship, or to be subject to any of its obligations, since they never possessed it. Mr. Foster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Fellows, Nov. 30, 1892, 189 MS. Dom. See, in the same sense, Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cunes, May 18, "The Department is not aware, however, that this claim [of military service in Italy] has been extended to the second generation, and if you were born in the United States, it is not thought likely that any claim would be made on you for military service should you visit Italy." (Mr. Day, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Pastorelli, Jan. 18, 1898, 224 MS. Dom. Let. 511.) The United States declined to enter into a naturalization convention with Italy, which provided (1) that naturalization in the United States should be conferred only on persons who should make application for it, thus denying, at least by implication, the incidental or derivative naturalization of wives and minor children, and (2) that it should not exempt Italians admitted to citizenship in the United States from military duty on returning to their native country. Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Baron Fava, Italian amb., June 13, 1894, See Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Truda, Aug. 30, 1894, 198 MS. Dom. October 19, 1896, Mr. MacVeagh, ambassador at Rome, brought to the attention of the Italian Government the case of one Vittorio Gardella, a citizen of the United States, who was then performing military service under compulsion in Italy. It appeared that he was born in Italy in 1861 and was taken to the United States when only six years of age. He was naturalized in 1884. He resided in the United States continuously from 1877 to 1895, his home being in the city of New York where he had a wife and family. He was on a visit to Italy when he was drafted into the army. Mr. Olney, Secretary of State, in writing to Mr. MacVeagh, Nov. 6, 1896, referred to the case of Mileo, printed in For. Rel. 1890, 536554. The Department, he said, had "little to add to the views expressed in the Mileo case," and, while it would welcome Mr. MacVeagh's endeavors to arrange the matter by treaty, it was not inclined to hope for such a result unless the Italian view should have been materially modified. Mr. MacVeagh brought the case personally to the attention of the Italian minister for foreign affairs, the Marquis Visconte Venosta, and obtained Gardella's release in the form of a grant of unlimited leave, which did not formally waive the contention of the Italian Government. Indeed, the Marquis Visconte Venosta, in informing Mr. MacVeagh of Gardella's release, observed that while he had no doubt lost his Italian citizenship by virtue of article 11, paragraph 2, of the Italian Civil Code, he nevertheless remained " liable to military service in the Kingdom, according to the peremptory provisions of the succeeding article 12," and that the case of Gardella had been disposed of" in an exceptional way" in view of his exceptional situation, of certain amendments which were expected to be made in the law regulating the levy of persons residing abroad when enlisted, and of the interest which Mr. MacVeagh took in the case. For. Rel. 1896, 423–426. See Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. O'Brien, Nov. 16, 1895, 206 MS. Dom. "Should you voluntarily return to Italy, you will place yourself within the jurisdiction of the Italian law, and while, if you should be held for military service, our embassy at Rome would, on proof of your American citizenship, intervene in your behalf, the success of the intervention can not be foreseen." Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dondero, Nov. 22, 1895, 206 MS. Dom. Let. 156. To the same effect, see Mr. Day, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Magnano, Oct. 6, 1897, 221 MS. Dom. Let. 346; Mr. Adee, Second Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. d'Esopo, Oct. 26, 1897, 222 id. 16; Mr. Moore, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Reiss, Aug. 29, 1898, 231 id. 147; Mr. Moore, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Ruggiero, Sept. 13, 1898, 231 id. 342; Mr. Hill, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Victro, Dec. 14, 1898, 233 id. 261; to Mr. Strasbourger, June 30, 1900, 246 id. 207. In December, 1897, Giuseppe Bruno, a naturalized American citizen of Italian origin, was impressed into the Italian army. May 9, 1898, the American ambassador at Rome was instructed to use his "good offices" to obtain Bruno's release. "This he has been and is doing." (Mr. Hill, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Smith, Oct. 27, 1898, 232 MS. Dom. Let. 405.) "It is thought. that if you were to address a petition directly to the The collection of a legacy in Italy is a private matter which should be ar- "The information given below is believed to be correct, yet it is not to be considered as official, as it relates to the laws and regulations of a foreign country. "Italian subjects between the ages of 20 and 39 years are liable for the performance of military duty under Italian law, except in the case of an only son, or where two brothers are so nearly of the same age that both would be serving at the same time, in which event only |