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
[Page 54]
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.
