reau, be abrogated, since there is no litigated case in which such denial could not be set up. As regards the case of J. C. Landit was finally decided by this Department not to press the claim on the ground, among others, that Landreau was not a citi zen of the United States when it accrued. The case against Mr. Morris is strengthened by the fact that no evidence is offered that his attainment of American citizenship extended further than a declaration of intention to ask for it some ten years ago." Mr. Porter, Act. Sec. of State, to Messrs. Kennedy & Shellaberger, Jan. 4, 1887, S. Doc. 287, 57 Cong. 1 sess. July 22, 1899, Count Vinci, Italian chargé, communicated with the Department of State concerning the lynching during the preceding night of five Italians by a mob at Tallulah, La. Mr. Hay, as Secretary of State, immediately telegraphed to the governor of Louisiana. stating that the Italian chargé asked protection for any Italian subjects who might be in danger, and inquiring whether the persons lynched were "Italian subjects or naturalized Americans." Regret was expressed to the Italian chargé for the occurrence, and an assurance was given that the United States would take all legal steps which the facts might warrant to secure justice. An assurance was also given by the governor of Louisiana that every effort would be made to bring the perpetrators of the outrage to justice. The names of the victims were Giovanni Cirano, of Tusa; Francesco, Carlo, and Guiseppe Difatta, of Cefalo; and Rosario Fiducia. also of Cefalo. The outrage originated in a quarrel concerning a goat which belonged to one of the Difatta brothers, who carried on the grocery business at Tallulah. It seems that the goat was in the habit of climbing on the balcony of the house of a Dr. Hodge, who, becoming annoyed at it, shot it. The next day Carlo Difatta accosted Dr. Hodge in the street and struck him a blow with his fist. The doctor then shot him, and when he fell put his foot upon him, appar ently intending to fire again. Giuseppe Difatta then shot at the doctor from a gun loaded with bird shot. A rumor having spread that Dr. Hodge had been killed, a mob quickly collected and went in search of Carlo and Giuseppe Difatta, who had succeeded in getting away and concealing themselves, while the sheriff arrested Francesco Difatta, Rosario Fiducia, and Giovanni Cirano and lodged them in jail. It was stated that Cirano and Fiducia had taken no part in the affray. Giuseppe and Carlo Difatta were found by the mob and were hanged, and the mob then went to the jail and took Francesco Difatta, Giovanni Cirano, and Rosario Fiducia and hanged them also. In August, 1899, the governor of Louisiana transmitted to the Department of State certificates of the naturalization of "Charles μ Defatta," dated June 28, 1899; Syha Deferach, dated June 28, 1899, and "Frank Defata," dated November 8, 1895. It was at first supposed that the person who was naturalized as Syha Deferach was Giuseppe Difatta, and that the real name of Carlo Difatta was Pasquale Difatta. Moreover, some of the evidence tended to show that Frank Defatta had, at the time of his naturalization, been in the United States only about a year and a half, and Charles Defatta a only about two years; and on this ground the Italian embassy made the point that, as the certificates of naturalization did not expressly recite that the persons mentioned in them had previously made a declaration of intention, they must be considered only as first papers, or, if intended as final papers, must be considered as irregular and void. The Department of State, however, maintained that no recital of the declaration of intention was necessary, and that the papers were not defective in form as certificates of naturalization. September 14, 1899, Governor Foster transmitted to the Department of State the official report of the sheriff of Madison Parish on the lynching. According to this report, the affray began by Charles Defatta striking at Dr. Hodge with a knife as the doctor was on his way home in the evening. The doctor drew his pistol and struck his assailant over the head, and in the struggle fired a shot which did not take effect. At this point Joseph Defatta emptied both barrels of a shotgun into the doctor at close range, the shots taking effect in his stomach, arms, and hands. On hearing the shots the sheriff proceeded to the scene of the shooting and found Frank Defatta, Syha Defferach (Giuseppe Defatta), and John Cyrano, one armed with a shotgun and the other two with pistols, running toward the scene of the disturbance. With the assistance of some citizens, the sheriff disarmed these three men, and after some resistance lodged them in jail. Meanwhile Charles Defatta had barricaded himself in his shop and defied arrest. The sheriff summoned a posse, broke in, and arrested him. Joe Defatta, who had concealed himself in an adjoining house, was discovered and arrested, but the sheriff, while taking them to jail, was overpowered by a mob, who took the prisoners and hung them. The mob then overpowered the jailer, secured the keys, and took the other three men from the jail and hung them. This was done in spite of a protest of the sheriff and officers of the court. It was stated that the reputation of the Sicilians was very bad. Joe Define, a relative and associate of the victims, who had left since the lynching, had assassinated a man, but had escaped punishment. Frank Defatta had killed a negro and had also escaped punishment. The circumstances indicated that a conspiracy had been formed to It will be observed that Defatta is only the Anglicised form of the Italian Difatta. murder Dr. Hodge, and that Charles Defatta was selected to do the deed. This was the popular view of the matter, which, coupled with the fact that the victims were all taken with arms in their hands. led to the lynching. The night of the lynching was cloudy and dark, and the sheriff stated that he was unable to identify any of the perpe trators. September 20, 1899, the Department of State advised the Italian embassy that the grand jury had been unable to find an indictment on the facts before it, and that the matter would be submitted anew to the grand jury at the next term of court. As the report of the sheriff differed from the accounts previously received, it was stated that a special agent would be sent to make the necessary investigations on the spot. For. Rel. 1899, 440-441, 444, 447-448, 453, 457, 458, 459, 461-463. See, also, For. Rel. 1900, 715–731. By the act of March 3, 1901, Congress appropriated the sum of $4,000, to be paid, "out of humane consideration, without reference to the question of liability therefor, to the Italian Government as full indemnity to the heirs of Joseph Defatta and John Cyrano, Italian citizens who were lynched at Tallulah, Louisiana, on July 20, 1899." (31 Stat., 1010.) Two reports were made by the agent of the Department of Justice. By these reports it appears that the person naturalized as "Syba Deferach" was in reality Rosario Fiducia, and that Joseph (Giuseppe) Defatta had not been naturalized. (Mr. Griggs, At. Gen., to Sec. of State, March 23, 1901, MS. Misc. Let.) As to the claim of Giuseppe Defina, in connection with the Tallulah lynching, see S. Doc. 95, 57 Cong. 1 sess. 3. NATURALIZATION NOT RETROACTIVE. § 981. See supra, §§ 401-407. In declining to present a diplomatic claim to the Government of Austria, Mr. Marcy said: "The wrong you complain of was done more than six years before you were a citizen of the United States, and while you were a subject of the Emperor of Austria. The application you make seems to require this Government to interpose in a matter between the Austrian Government and one of its subjects. That was the practical relation when the act complained of took place. It can not, therefore, be said to be an injury done to one of our citizens, but only to a person who several years fterwards became a citizen of the United States." a Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Ujhazi, Aug. 26, 1856, 45 MS. Dom. Let. 468. "By adopting a foreigner, under any form of naturalization, as a citizen, this government does not undertake the patronage of a claim which he may have upon the country of his original allegiance or upon any other government. To admit that he can charge it with this burden would allow him to call upon a dozen governments in succession, to each of which he might transfer his allegiance, to urge his claim. Under such a rule the government supposed to be indebted could never know when the discussion of a claim would cease. All governments are, therefore, interested in resisting such pretensions." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Miller, May 16, 1871, 89 MS. Dom. Let. 348. Where a person, who was naturalized in the United States in 1874, asked for diplomatic intervention in order to obtain the restoration of his property which was embargoed in Cuba in 1871, the Department of State said: "When your alleged injuries took place you were not a citizen of the United States, and therefore, under well-established canons of international law, it is not within the province of this Government to inquire whether your property was wrongfully or rightfully taken. . It would be a monstrous doctrine, which this Government would not tolerate for a moment, that a citizen of the United States who might deem himself injured by the authorities of the United States or of any State, could, by transferring his allegiance to another power, confer upon these powers the right to inquire into the legality of the proceedings by which he may have been injured while a citizen." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bachiller, April 8, 1874, 102 MS. Dom. See, to the same effect, Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Messrs. Coudert Broth- "Subsequent naturalization does not alter the international status of a claim which accrued before naturalization." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Golding, Apr. 30, 1886, 160 MS. Dom. See, also, Mr. Porter, Act. Sec. of State, to Messrs. Kennedy & Shella- "The position that the claimant is not entitled to redress, because, though the confiscation and appropriation of the proceeds of the estate took place after he became a citizen of the United States, the embargo was laid before that citizenship was perfected, cannot be maintained. Both by the Roman and the English common law, it is an established principle (as is more fully illustrated in the report of the solicitor, of which I inclose a copy) that where an injurious procedure is put in motion in such a way as to have a continuous effect, liability for the effect is not barred by the circumstance that when the procedure was started no liability could be maintained. But in this case, while the original embargo was laid before the claimant's citizenship was perfected, it is otherwise with the confis cation and subsequent enormous appropriation of the revenues of the estates. These were subsequent to the perfection of Mr. Mora's citizenship and aside from the point above given the Spanish Government is liable for them, as for distinct acts of injury." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Curry, Jan. 22, 1886, MS. Inst. Spain, "It is true that Mr. Acosta's naturalization, the validity of which was admitted by the advocate for Spain, on the 30th October, 1882. was subsequent to the executive order of sequestration of his property by about five months. But while for losses accruing prior to his naturalization he can not claim such interposition, it is otherwise as to losses accruing subsequent to his naturalization. The case may be likened to a series of continuous injuries sustained by a person before and after reaching full age. The disabilities attaching to him as a minor, however much they might prevent him by the lex fori from suing when a minor, would not preclude him from suing when of full age in his own name, at least for damages sustained subsequent to his majority. Hence the claimant in the present case, as to matters not barred by the decision of the arbitrators, is entitled to the intervention of this Department, at least for injuries sustained by him subsequent to his naturalization." Mr. Eayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Curry, Apr. 9, 1886, MS. Inst. Spain. To a person who sought to make, as a citizen of the United States, a diplomatic claim against Mexico, the Department of State said: "Your certificate of naturalization in the United States is dated August 18, 1893, while the seizure of your property occurred in 1891. so that even if the case which you present were otherwise a proper one for intervention, which appears very doubtful, this Department could not act in the matter." Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bentaing, Feb. 21, 1894, 195 MS. Dom. See, also, Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Struller, June 30, 1896, 211 MS. 4. RIGHT OF INTERPOSITION NOT ASSIGNABLE. § 982. "An assignment of a claim by a foreigner, or another government. to a citizen of the United States, even if such claim be founded in |