Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress with the Annual Message of the President, December 2, 1872, Part II, Volume II

Codice penale del regno d’Italia.

[undated.]

• 174. Chiunque con atti ostili non-approvati dal governo del re avrà esposto lo stato ad una dichiurazione di guerra, sara punito colla relegazione; se la guerra ne fosse segnita, la pena sarà dei lavori forzati a tempo.
• 175. Chiunque con atti non approvati dal governo del re avrà esposto regnicoli a vorfrire rappresaglie, sara punito colla relegazione estensible ad anni dieci o col carcere; salve le pene maggiori in cui fosse incorso per gliatti corumessi.

Si il colpevole è un punzionario publico soggiacera alia pena della relegazione.

[Translation.]

Penal statute of the kingdom of Italy.

• 174. [340] If any person whosoever shall, by acts not authorized by the government of the King, have exposed the state to a declaration of war, he shall *be punished with banishment; if the war has been actually carried out, he shall be punished with temporary penal servitude.
• 175. If any person whosoever shall, by acts not approved of by the government of the King, have exposed the subjects of the kingdom to reprisals, he shall be punished with banishment even for a term of ten years, or with imprisonment, without prejudice to any further penalty to which he may be liable on account of the acts he has committed. If the offender be a public functionary, he shall be punished with banishment.

These provisions are similar to those of the Code Pénal of Prance on the same subject, and to those of the Netherlands, Belgium, Bavaria, Spain, Portugal, and other countries of Europe, as collected in the work entitled “Le gularioni comparatodel codice penale Italiano,” by Mar-teno Speciolo Castelleri, p. 284. In all these codes, therefore, the commentaries, cases, and opinions, having reference to Articles 84 and 85 of the Code Penal of France, apply. Special commentary thereon is, nevertheless, subjoined.—(Commentario del codice penale, T. Ferrarotti, Vol. I, pp. 261, 262.)

[341] *Codice degli ex stati Extensi—Art. 169, n.6, Veggasene il tesio sotto Vart. 169 precedente.

Occorendo decidere quali atti abbiano a ritenersi siccome capaci ad esporre i regnicoli a subire rappresaglie? Consultinsi Carnot, Comm. sull’ art. 85, n. 2.—Haus, Osseri, Sul. prog. Belg., t.11, p. 23.—Dalloz, t. XXVII, p. 7.—Rauter, Tratt. di drit. crim., § 287.—Chauveau et Hélié, t. 1, n. 1062, ediz. Brux.

II fatto d’aver tentato di allontanare militari nazionali dalle loro ban-diere per farli passare in paese straniaro, constituisce il crimine di reclutamento all’ estero, ancorché lo stato non abbia nemici all’ estero ne ribelli all’ estero né ribelli all’ interno, e sia in pace con tutte le altre protenze. Cass. Franc,. 2 april, 1831.—Sir., t. XXXI, parte 1, p. 377—13 febbraio, 1823.— Morin e Sabire, 1. c.—Carnot, art. 92, n. 6.

[342] Sulla questione se lo scopo di questo articulo, sia di punire ogni arma-mento illegale, ovvero soltanto e piu verosimilmente la leva illegittima di truppe annate, l’armamento illegale di soldate destinati nell’ inten-zione dell’ a gente ad attacare i poteri dello stato?—Vedi nel primo senso Cass, franc. 13 febbraio, 1823, riferitada Camot sull’ art. 92, n. 6.—Contra nel secondo senso e più rettainente, secondo noi:” Chauveau, *et Hélié, t. 1, n. 1179, ed. Brux. Quindi sembra inquesto ultimo senso necessario.che logetto delP arruolaniento sia determinato nelle quistioni sottoposte ai guirate.

Carnot sull’ art. 92, n. 1e; Sebire e Carteret, Encicl. del drit.—Attentate politici 1.11, p. 217, opinano che la parole—senza l’autorizzazione del governo del re—espresse in questo articulo, non debonno intendersi in une senso troppo assoluto. Che perciò l’argente, il quale sata proceduto ad una leva di nomini senza l’autorizzazione del potee, sava non dimeno scusabile se avra agito per ordine dei suoi supèriori nell’ ordine gerachico, e tale arruolamento sia stato un atto della sue funzioni. Ciò posto, Morin, diz.—Usurpazione di autorita—sogguinge chela questione di sapere se tale ordine od autorizzazione siano stati legittimamente ossia regolarmente dati, debb’ essere posta, spettando all accusato di fornirne la prova ed ai guirati di apprezzarla.

[343] [Translation.]

Statute of the ancient States of Este, Art. 169, No. 6.—See the text under Art. 169, above mentioned.

The question being to decide what acts are to be considered as being liable to expose the subjects of the kingdom to reprisals. Consult Carnot, Comment, on art. 85, No. 2.—Haus, Observ. on Belgian Proj., vol ii, p. 23.—Dallozo, vol. xxvii, p. 7.—Rauter, Treatise on Criminal Right, sec. 267.—Chauveau and Hélié, vol. i, No. 1062, Edit. of Brussels.

The fact of having attempted to entice away national soldiers and to take them away to a foreign country, constitutes the crime of recruiting abroad, though the State be not at war with any foreign nation, not contending with any rebels in the country, and be at peace with all other powers. (French Court of Cass., April 2, 1831—Sir, vol. xxxi, part 1, p. 377, February 13, 1823.—Morin and Sebire, 1. c,—Carnot, art. 92, No. 6.)

[344] On the question as to the bearing of said article, whether it be intended to punish all unlawful armament, or only and more likely the illegitimate levying of troops and unlawful armament of soldiers intended to’attack the authority of the State, see in the first sense, French Court of Cassation, February 13, 1823, quoted by Caznot, *on art. 92, No. 6; against the second sense, and more rightly, as it appears to us, Chauveau and Hélié, vol. 1, No. 1179. Bruss. ed. In this latter sense, it seems necessary that the object of the enlistment be determined in the questions presented to the consideration of the jury.

Carnot on art. 92, No. 1, and Sebire and Carteret Encyclopedia of Law, Political Offenses, vol. ii, p. 217, deem that the words “without the authorization of the government of the king” in this article, are not to be understood in a too absolute sense; therefore, that the agent who shall have proceeded to levy men without the authorization of the government shall nevertheless be excusable if he shall have acted in conformance with the directions of his hierarchical superiors, and if such enlistment shall have been part of his ordinary functions.

On these premises, Morin, Usurpation of Authority, contends moreover that the question, whether such directions or such authorization be legitimately or regularly given, is to be presented to the consideration of the jury, and that the defendant is expected to give the proof thereof, and the jury is to decide on the value of said proof.