power of the Italian Government on behalf of persons, or the representatives of persons, whose fate and fortunes were at the time of the infliction of the wrongs complained of no real concern to that Government.

"In bringing the Hahnville cases to the notice of the State Department your excellency has evidently been under the impression that they resemble in all substantial particulars the cases of certain Italians lynched in New Orleans in 1891, and of certain others lynched at Walsenburg, Colo., in 1894. But in the last-named cases there was neither allegation nor proof that the persons killed had ever taken part in the political affairs of a State or of the United States by qualifying as voters and actually voting at elections. In the New Orleans cases, out of the eleven persons of Italian extraction who were lynched, two were American citizens; five had declared their intent to become United States citizens and had voted; of the remaining four, three had neither voted nor declared their intent to become United States citizens, while one had declared such intent, but had not voted. To the four persons last mentioned the representations of your Government and its demands upon the United States through you were expressly limited, as appears by reference to the correspondence on the subject between yourself and the State Department. It is true that the Italian consul at New Orleans, in a note to the district attorney, argued that the Italian Government could rightfully intervene on behalf of the five persons who had declared their intent to become United States citizens and had voted, and that the district attorney in a note to the Attorney-General controverted that view. But no position of the Italian consul, though brought to your notice, was ever adopted by you-it was never discussed between the two Governments. The note announcing your departure from Washington by order of your Government specifies only four Italian subjects on account of whom demands had been made upon this Government, and the incident, when settled, was settled by the payment of a lump sum, the application of which was left wholly to the Italian Government. The result is that the subject to which the attention of the Italian Government is now invited. is one upon which the two Governments in their relations to each other stand wholly uncommitted. It is not, therefore, permissible to doubt that the question will be examined and passed upon by each in an enlightened spirit and with a sincere purpose not only to dispose of the particular matter in hand, but to ascertain and fix a just and proper rule for the determination of all like questions hereafter arising."

Baron Fava, the Italian ambassador, in reply maintained that neither the position and responsibility of the persons murdered, nor

the apparent criminality of the persons lynched, could be considered as important, the question at issue being the application of the fundamental principle of law and justice that the accused were to be considered innocent till found guilty by judicial process. He also affirmed that the evidence showed that the local authorities were guilty of negligence both in failing to protect the prisoners, and in failing to hunt out and prosecute the lynchers. He contended that such proceedings as were taken could "not do otherwise than tend to encourage similar outrages in future." Proceeding then to the question of intervention, Baron Fava said:

"You inform me that the Federal Government, while it reserves its decision on the subject, is inclined to think that there are serious reasons to doubt any right or duty on the part of the Italian Government against that of the United States resulting from the lynching at Hahnville.

"These reasons are the following: That one or perhaps all three of the men lynched had taken out their first naturalization papers (i. e., declared their intention to become naturalized); that all three had voted in the State of Louisiana; that all three had resided uninterruptedly in the aforesaid State without any apparent fixed intention to return to their native country.

"You state these three reasons, and assert that, while the three men lynched did not in any way contribute to the prosperity and wealth of Italy, and while they even avoided obeying the laws relating to military duty, they took an active part in the political life of this country, where, as electors, they had become, according to the constitution and laws of Louisiana, as interpreted by that supreme court, citizens of that State.

"I should extend this communication beyond the limits of a note if I undertook to quote the laws in force here and the opinions of American publicists in support of the principle that naturalization in the United States can not be granted otherwise than by the Federal laws exclusively, and not by State laws. It is not, moreover, for me to remind your excellency, who is so thoroughly versed in legal affairs, of the universally accepted doctrine that 'mere declaration of intention does not confer citizenship.'

"Whatever were the laws of Louisiana on this subject; whether they had taken out their first papers or not; whether they had voted as electors or not, Salardino, Arena, and Venturella were not citizens of the United States. In order to become so they would have had to comply with the provisions of section 2165 of the Revised Statutes, which regulates, uniformly, the concession of naturalization which is granted in the United States by the national legislative power exclusively. I here cite the cases of Chirac v. Chirac (2 Wheaton, p.

269), and of Osborn v. The United States Bank (3 Wheaton, 267), in which Chief Justice Marshall expressed himself as follows:

"The power of naturalization, being exclusively in Congress, certainly ought not to be controverted.'

"This view is fully stated in the legal memorandum which is herewith inclosed. (Inclosure A.) In this paper, after examining the question in the light of the constitution, laws, and jurisprudence of the State of Louisiana, Lawyer Chiapella says:

"The alien elector has certain privileges in the matter of voting in Louisiana and in a few other States, granted to him in anticipation of a future naturalization which may never ripen into citizenship, and that is all. But he has not yet crossed the Rubicon. He has not been naturalized under the act of Congress. He is still under the allegiance of the foreign Government, and competent to place himself under the ægis of its protection.'

"The foregoing is sufficient to show that Salardino, Arena, and Venturella, not having met the requirements of the provisions on the subject of naturalization which are contained in the Revised Statutes, had preserved the plentitude of their capacity as Italian subjects, and that, I repeat, in virtue of the laws of the United States. Nevertheless, but in a purely subordinate line, and without prejudice to the incontestable Italian nationality of the three aforesaid individuals, I do not hesitate to enter, with your excellency, upon an examination of the other special points of your note, relative to the status of the lynched persons.

"It is stated by the special agent of your Department that Salardino, Arena, and Venturella had voted at the political elections in Louisiana; that Arena had taken out his first naturalization papers, while it is to be presumed that the two others had done the same, as they also had presented themselves at the elections; and that all three had definitely fixed their domicil in the United States.

"I do not know what were the sources of this information; as, however, they are wholly at variance with that furnished the authorities of Louisiana, and with that which I have received from the Italian consulate at New Orleans, I must beg your excellency to inform me: (a) In what registers and under what date the three Italians are inscribed as electors; (b) from which of the five Federal courts of Louisiana Arena had received his first papers; (c) when, and to whom, the three Italians had declared that they had fixed their domicil in the United States. . . .

"But even if Salardino, Arena, and Venturella had voted at the elections, and even if the laws of Louisiana attached great importance to that fact, how could this affect the well-proved fact that they were not American citizens?

"The first, Salardino, had resided fully twelve years in Louisiana, and even if he voted, he had not taken out either his first or second naturalization papers. Arena, according to the special agent, had only taken out his first papers, and his attempts to become an American citizen had stopped there. Venturella does not appear to have done even this, as the said special agent could not find either his certificate of first declaration or that of Salardino. All three had had time to ask for their first and second papers. Why did they not do so? The mere fact of having voted would not have conferred upon any of the three the right of citizenship, as is amply shown in the inclosed memorandum; and if they voted, they voted illegally, and probably because they had been misled by native politicians in search of voters, legal or illegal.

"But there is more to be said. The four Italians who were lynched at Walsenburg on the 14th of March, 1895, Francesco Ronchietto, Stanislao Vittone, Pietro Giacobino, and Antonio Gobette, had solemnly declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, and to renounce forever all submission and allegiance to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, and especially the King of Italy, and they all were in possession of their first naturalization papers. Notwithstanding this, and in spite of those solemn declarations, when I informed the Federal Government of the murders which had been committed, Mr. Uhl came to my house and expressed the President's regret for that bloody act, and your honorable predecessor and your excellency yourself, deeply impressed with a sense of the duties which the Government of the Union has assumed toward a friendly power by virtue of treaties, did not raise the slightest objection; you all immediately recognized the Italian nationality of the four victims, and a suitable indemnity, recómmended by your Department and by the President, was granted to the bereaved families. In view of this precedent, it can hardly be maintained that the subject to which you have now called my attention is one of those as to which the two Governments are entirely uncommitted.

"And lastly, the fact that the three victims had been in the United States for several years can not be cited as a proof of their deliberate 'animus manendi.' If they had not been residing here temporarily, as asserted by your note, they would have sent for their families, whom they had left in Italy, where they had their domicil, and whom they supported from here by their labor, Venturella his wife and seven children, Arena his wife and four-year-old son, and Salardino his old father, who was unable to earn his living. Under these circumstances, and however long and continuous their absence from Italy might have been, it can not be said that they had transferred their domicil to Louisiana, nor had they no intention of

returning to their native land, nor that they were not contributing to the resources and wealth of their own country. They had come here on business; that is to say, to provide by the fruits of their labor for the comfort of their wives, children, and parents, and they were thus contributing to the wealth of the country in which they had their home.

"Nor is the other assertion, that they had withdrawn from military service, correct. By the two affidavits which I have the honor to submit to you (inclosures 5 and 6) the signers declare under oath: "(a) That Giuseppe Venturella had performed his regular military service in the artillery, and that he landed in the United States with a regular passport in his possession.

"(b) That Salvatore Arena had not performed any military service, because, as an only son, he was enrolled in the third class, and that when he arrived in the United States he was in possession of a regu

lar passport.

"(e) And lastly, that Lorenzo Salardino had never performed any military service, because he, too, as an only son, was enrolled in the third class, and that he came to the United States with a regular Italian passport.

"I can not follow your excellency in the views expressed by you as to a Government demanding indemnity for injuries inflicted upon one of its own subjects, being the agent of said injured subject. In that case the American Government would be, near that of the Sultan, the agent of the missionaries, in behalf of whom it is now demanding indemnities. Every Government owes it to itself to protect, within the bounds of justice, its own subjects, however poor and humble, and it would otherwise lose the respect of civilized nations. "Referring to the other lynching which occurred in New Orleans in 1891, and which you mention in your note, I must correct a statement contained in that note, which statement is absolutely and entirely incorrect. Of the eleven persons who were victims of that savage slaughter, two were American citizens, four were undoubtedly Italian subjects, and the other five, who had only taken out their first papers, were justly regarded by the royal consul at New Orleans as Italian subjects. By the pure, simple, and unreserved transmission to the Department of State, in my note of March 25, of the report of the said consul, I evidently and impliedly adopted his views on the subject. Otherwise I would have kept his report to myself. In consequence of its having been remarked to me in person at the Department of State that it was possible that those five persons had also taken out their last papers, I requested the consul to make new and closer investigations in the case. As the diplomatic rupture between the two countries occurred a few days afterwards, and as the consul's replies did not reach me in time, I mentioned in