Two affidavits, competently executed by Nicolino Mileo, are herewith
transmitted in copy. The good character of the deponent and his general
reputation for veracity are attested by several worthy persons in whose
employ he was during his long residence in the United States, and copies of
their statements are also appended.
It appears from the complainant’s affidavits that he was born at Spinoso (in
the province of Basilicata?) in January. 1860; that in 1870, being then but
10 years old, he was brought to the United States by his father, Francisco
Mileo; that since that date he, Nicolino Mileo, has been domiciled in New
York, where he has been engaged in business for 15 years past; that he was
married in New York; that his wife, Gaetana, was and is a citizen of the
United States; and that he was duly naturalized before the court of common
pleas of New York on September 16, 1884, when over 23 years of age. His
father, Francisco Mileo, is further stated to have resided in the United
States for some 12 years, during which time he declared his intention to
become a citizen of the United States; but it appears that he, the father,
returned to Italy to reside in 1882, when the son was over 21 years of age
and consequently sui juris.
It further appears that sometime prior to April 1, 1889, one Albino Calasa, a
cousin of the complainant and an Italian subject, died, leaving to the
complainant by his will certain real estate situated at Spinoso; and on that
date, Nicolino Mileo and his wife set sail for Italy to take possession of
this property. They arrived at Spinoso on the 17th of April. On the
following day Mileo was ordered by the mayor of that place to go Potenza, 30
miles distant, to report for military service. He showed to that official
his certificate of naturalization and claimed immunity from military service
on the ground that he was a citizen of the United States, but was told—it is
alleged in obscene language—that this paper was of no value, and that if he
did not obey the order he would be arrested. Moved by this threat, he
consented to go. He arrived at Potenza on the 22d of April, and, despite his
protests and claim of American citizenship, he was compelled to strip and
undergo a physical examination. Being declared able to serve, he was dressed
in the uniform of an Italian soldier. On the 23d of April he was taken [Page 537] to the city of Alessandria, where
he was confined for 30 days in jail, under circumstances, as alleged, of
great hardship, as a punishment for his failure to return to Italy to
perform military service. He was thereafter compelled to serve for 5½ months
in company 12 of the Eighty-sixth regiment of infantry of the Italian army.
At the close of that time, having obtained leave of absence, he went to
Genoa and left Italy on a vessel bound for Zanzibar, from which place he
returned to the United States by way of Marseilles.
He now alleges that the Italian authorities will not permit his wife to come
to him and threaten to detain her in Italy until he returns thither. This
allegation is so extraordinary and so repugnant to the principles of justice
that this Government hesitates to believe it. The whole case calls for the
prompt and thorough investigation which you are hereby instructed to ask;
and in doing so you will state the confident expectation of this Government
that, should the allegations of the complainant be substantiated as to the
cruel imprisonment to which he was subjected, and as to the detention of
Mileo’s wife as a hostage for her husband’s return, the action of the
Italian authorities will be disavowed and the liberty of this woman, who is
stated to be a native citizen of the United States, as well as the wife of a
citizen, will no longer be unjustly interfered with.
The claim of the Italian Government with respect to the continuance of
obligation of military service notwithstanding the loss of Italian
citizenship has been frequently made known and is well understood here. A
mass of correspondence on this subject is on file in your legation, and I
need only advert to the cases of Sbarbaro in 1871, of Biaggotta in 1872, of
Largomarsino in 1877, and of Gabriella in the same year. The case on the
part of Italy is understood to rest on article 12, book i, of the Italian civil code, which reads:
The preceding article 11 provides, in its second paragraph, that Italian
citizenship is lost—
This provision fully meets the case of Mileo. Brought to this country at the
age of 10, he was duly naturalized here at the age of 23, and he resided
here continuously for 19 years until last year, when he was 29 years of age.
The case is therefore uncomplicated by any question as to the effect of his
father’s nonrenunciation of Italian citizenship and subsequent return to
Italy in 1882, when, as has been seen, he left his son, then sui juris and domiciled in the United States, here to
perfect his naturalization under our laws. Eicolino Mileo is a citizen of
the United States by his own competent act.
As to the question of subjection to Italian military service, a distinct
conflict of jurisdiction exists between the two Governments. The position of
our Government in this regard and with reference to the treatment of a
naturalized American citizen returning to the country having a conflicting
claim upon him by reason of his own origin was well stated by Mr. Faulkner,
our minister to France in 1860, when he wrote:
This principle has been practically recognized and specifically affirmed in
the various naturalization treaties which the United States have concluded
with foreign powers, and even with respect to states holding the doctrine of
perpetual allegiance, which the Italian code rejects. It is not believed
that the Italian Government claims rights over returning naturalized
citizens in essential conflict with our position. It is understood to claim
the personal fulfillment of an obligation accruing and complete when the
party was still subject to Italian jurisdiction, and to claim the right to
punish actual desertion or the refusal to serve when actually conscripted.
This latter right of punishment, thus limited and defined, is conceded, be
it remarked, by the United States in their naturalization treaties, as
witness our treaty of September 20, 1870, with Austria-Hungary, article
2.
When Nicolino Mileo was taken away from Naples by his father at the age of
10, no liability to military services had accrued against him. He was at
that tinie a subject of Ferdinand II, king of the two Sicilies. Had he
remained, adopting the fortunes of his native State and becoming a citizen
of Italy upon the annexation of Naples to Sardinia on December 17, 1870, he
would, on attaining the prescribed age, have been liable to conscription,
and, if drawn and found able, to service in the ranks. Because this triple
liability in the distant contingencies of the future may have rested on him
in an inchoate form at the age of 10, it can not be admitted that this
indeterminate responsibility so followed him through his voluntary adoption
of a foreign citizenship as to render him liable, 19 years afterwards, to
punishment as a malefactor for nonfulfillment of a positive obligation.
There may perhaps be room to maintain a distinction between the punishment of
Mileo for a constructive offense and his enforced subjection to military
service after he had returned to Italy and had been held personally liable
and found physically able to serve. In the latter case a positive conflict
of jurisdiction arises, and the action of the Italian authorities in forcing
into their ranks a man whose status as a citizen of another State is
unquestionable calls now, as on previous occasions, for earnest dissent and
protest. It is greatly to be regretted that Italy stands aloof from our
repeated proposals to adjust the question by treaty on bases which have in
practice through conventional agreements become the measure of international
claim and concession in this regard between many of the most important
nations of the earth. In this relation, it may be proper to recall to your
attention the language employed by Mr. Fish, when Secretary of State, in his
instruction to Mr. Marsh, No. 361, of November 15, 1872:
I may add that it is unfortunate that by its attitude in this regard Italy
should be put in the erroneous position of appearing to cling to the now
very generally abandoned doctrine of perpetual allegiance, a dogma alike
contrary to her enlightened policy and expressly rejected by her national
code.
As for the allegation that Mrs. Mileo is deprived of her personal freedom and
coerced into remaining in Italy, the charge is so incredible that, without
fuller knowledge on the subject, it is not possible to instruct you further
than to make instant and earnest protest should the fact be established.
Whatever may be the charges laid at the husband’s door, no theory of law is
known by which the wife can be vicariously proceeded against or be held as a
hostage for the husband’s appearance. I prefer, however, to believe that the
statement is either without foundation or rests on some misconception which
the Italian Government can and will at once remove by recognizing in favor
of this American woman the right she claims to quit Italian territory at
will.
[Inclosure 1 in No. 55.]
Mr. Kennedy to Mr.
Blaine.
Washington
,
February 18,
1890. (Received February 18.)
Sir: The petition of Nicolino Mileo, which I
have the honor to submit for your consideration, presents, it seems to
me, a case of extraordinary interest and importance to the Government
and people of the United States.
A citizen of the United States, naturalized under the laws which provide
for the naturalization of foreigners who have settled in this Republic
before attaining the age of 18 years (R. S., 2167), returns temporarily
to his native country for a lawful and eminently proper purpose, and,
almost immediately upon his arrival, is arrested and forcibly conveyed
to another part of the Kingdom, where be is imprisoned in a cold, dark
cell or vault far underground and fed on bread and water for 30 days,
and afterwards forced into the military service of a monarchy whose only
claim on him arises from the fact that he happened to be born in its
territory.
The petition shows that when he came to this country Mileo was a mere
child and owed no duty whatever to the Italian Government. He was under
the power of his father, who brought him to New York in the year 1871.
Mileo’s father several years afterwards returned to Italy, but Mileo
remained and has always resided in New York since he first arrived in
that city, and, as appears by the inclosed certificate of his
naturalization, he had been a naturalized citizen of the United States
for more than 4 years prior to his temporary return to Italy in April of
last year.
There can be no pretense in this case that Mileo owed any military or
other service to the Italian Government when he was taken away from
Italy by his father in the year 1870, or that he left that Kingdom for
the purpose of evading any duty that he would or might have owed to the
Italian Government if he had remained and lived till he was of age
within Italian territory.
I need not say to you that for more than 30 years the Department of State
has maintained the absolute freedom of naturalized citizens of the
United States from liability to their native country, on their temporary
return thereto, for military service that was not actually due and
enforcible at the time of their emigration.
This doctrine was stated by Mr. William Richardson, at that time
Secretary of the Treasury and now Chief Justice of the Court of Claims,
in a communication addressed to the President of the United States on
October 20, 1873, as follows:
“A distinction was taken, however, in 1859 by the State Department, which
limited this view and which confined the foreign jurisdiction in regard
to naturalized citizens to such of them as were in the army or actually
called into it at the time they left the country; that is, to the case
of actual desertion or refusal to enter the army after having been
regularly drafted and called into it by the government to which they at
the time owed allegiance.
“In accordance with this view, Mr. Faulkner, minister of the United
States at Paris in 1860, said, in reference to the case of a naturalized
citizen who had emigrated before the period of military service:
“‘The doctrine of the United States is that the naturalized emigrant can
not be held responsible, upon his return to his native country for any
military duty the performance of which has not been actually demanded of
him prior to his emigration. A prospective liability to service in the
army is not sufficient. The obligation of contingent duties depending
upon time, sortition, or events thereafter to occur is not [Page 540] recognized. To subject him to
such responsibility, it should be a case of actual desertion or refusal
to enter the army after having been actually drafted into the service of
the Government to which he at the time owed allegiance.’
“The Secretary of State under Mr. Buchanan made the same distinction
between the contingent liability of those naturalized citizens who left
the country of their origin before the age of military service, without
the consent required by law, and those who escaped after they were
actually enrolled. He claimed that the former were, irrespective of the
obligations arising from the contingent liability which in the interim
had become complete, entitled, even in their native country, to the full
protection of American citizens.
“This doctrine is in entire harmony with the views of the
Attorney-General expressed in 1859 in the case of Christian Ernst, and
may, I think, be considered the views of the Government of the United
States. (9 Ops., 357.)
“A native or naturalized, citizen, therefore, may now go forth with equal
security over every sea and into every land, including the country where
the latter was born. They are both American citizens, and their
exclusive allegiance is due to the Government of the United States.”
(Foreign Relations, 1873, part 2,
pp. 1206–1208.)
The case of the petitioner comes clearly within the doctrine and practice
of the Department and within the principles declared by Congress on the
27th of July, 1868, in the “act concerning the rights of American
citizens in foreign states” (15 Stats., 223, 224).
Unless the action of his civil and military officers in Mileo’s case is
disavowed by His Majesty the King of Italy, it is a practical assertion
in the most positive and offensive form of the doctrine of inalienable
allegiance.
The petition shows that Mileo exhibited his certificate of naturalization
to the civil and military officers of the Italian Government before whom
he was taken and claimed at their hands immunity and protection as a
citizen of the United States; but they treated the evidence of his
nationality with contempt, and one of the magistrates derided it in
terms at once insulting and obscene.
Mileo’s wife, who was about to become a mother, accompanied him to Italy,
and by the enforced separation (which still continues) and the grief and
apprehension incident to the situation, it can readily be believed that
she was perhaps a greater sufferer than her husband from the cruel and
tyrannical treatment to which he was subjected by the Italian
authorities. And she, too, was and is a citizen of the United States. It
is scarcely credible that the Italian Government is preventing her
return as a sort of vicarious punishment for the escape of her husband
to the United States, although such an allegation is made, doubtless in
good faith, in the petition. I am assured of the truth of the petition
in all its essential parts by the Messrs. Leavitt Brothers, of New York,
attorneys for the petitioner.
It seems to me that this is a case for prompt and decisive action by the
President and Congress under the act of July 27, 1868, and also that,
considering the nature of the wrongs inflicted upon him, Mileo is
entitled to the full amount of the damages which he claims from the
Italian Government.
I have, etc.,
Crammond Kennedy,
Of Counsel for Nicolino Mileo.
In the matter of the claim of Nicolino Mileo against the Government of
Italy.
State of New York, City and County of New York, ss:
Nicolino Mileo, being duly sworn, says that he is a citizen of the United
States, having been duly naturalized as a citizen of the said United
States by the court of common pleas for the city and county of New York
on the 16th day of September, 1884, and that hereto annexed is a duly
certified copy of deponent’s certificate of naturalization.
And this deponent further says that he was born in the town of Spynosa in
the Kingdom of Italy, in the month of January, 1860. That in the year
1870, when this deponent was a minor of the age of 10 years, Francisco
Mileo, the father of this deponent, came to the city of New York and
brought this deponent with him. That since said year of 1870 this
deponent has resided and now resides in the said city of New York, and
is a citizen of the State of New York. That since September 16, 1884,
this deponent has been and is now a duly qualified voter in the said
State, city, and county of New York. That for more than 15 years this
deponent has been and is now engaged in business in the said city of New
York.
And this deponent further says that some time prior to April 1, 1889, one
Albino Calasa, a cousin of this deponent, residing in the said town of
Spynosa, in the said Kingdom of Italy, died, and by his last will and
testament left to this deponent a piece or parcel of real property
situated in said town of Spynosa, in said Kingdom of Italy, and valued
at between $800 and $1,000.
[Page 541]
That on the said 1st day of April, 1889, this cfeponent, accompanied by
Gaetana Mileo, the wife of this deponent, sailed from the said city of
New York for the city of Naples, in said Kingdom of Italy, for the
purpose of taking possession of said piece or parcel of real property
and selling the same, intending as soon as said sale of said property
was consummated to return to said city of New York.
That on the 17th day of April, 1889, this deponent and his said wife
arrived at the port of Naples, in said Kingdom of Italy, and on the same
day proceeded to the said town of Spynosa, and arrived at said town on
said 17th day of April, with his said wife, and this deponent and his
said wife went to the house of the said father of this deponent,
Francisco Mileo.
That on the 18th day of April, 1889, while deponent was at the said house
of his said father, he received a message from the mayor of the said
town of Spynosa, telling this deponent to go to the town of Potenza, 30
miles distant from said town of Spynosa, and report to the military
authorities in that town, and if he did not go he, the said mayor, would
arrest him.
That immediately upon the receipt of the said message from the said
mayor, this deponent called upon the said mayor and asked him why he had
to go to Potenza, the said mayor answered that deponent would have to
serve in the army. Deponent thereupon told said mayor that he was a
citizen of the United States, and showed said mayor his said certificate
of naturalization as a citizen of the United States, and told the said
mayor that he had lived in the United States since he was 10 years old.
In reply the said mayor laughed and said: “Those papers are no good; * *
* you can tear them up.” This deponent replied, saying: “I will not;
they are my protection.” The said mayor then said: “You will find no
protection here on those papers; if you do not go to Potenza, I will
lock you up.” Deponent answered, saying: “You have no right to lock me
up.” The mayor replied: “Make up your mind to either go or get locked
up.”
And this deponent further says, at said time the said wife of this
deponent was in a delicate condition and about to be confined in a few
months, and deponent, for fear the said mayor would lock him up, and to
save the disgrace of being locked up, and for fear if he was arrested
and locked up it would seriously injure his said wife, went to the said
town of Potenza, accompanied by two secretaries of the said mayor. That
this deponent arrived at the said town of Potenza at about 11 a.m. on
the 22d day of April, 1889, and went immediately before the consul of
labor.
That upon deponent’s arrival in the presence of the said consul of labor,
the said consul of labor told deponent to undress. Deponent refused to
undress, and told the said consul of labor that he was a citizen of the
United States, and that he had lived in the said United States since he
was 10 years old, and at the same time deponent showed the said consul
of labor his said certificate of naturalization as a citizen of the
United States; that the only reply the said consul of labor made was,
“Undress, and be quick about it, or we will tear your clothes off of
you;” that thereupon this deponent, in fear of bodily violence,
undressed, and a physical examination was made of this deponent; that
after said examination was made, the said consul of labor declared
deponent to be able to serve in the army, and was forthwith dressed in
the uniform of a soldier of the said Kingdom of Italy, the clothes of
this deponent being taken away; that immediately this deponent was taken
by two soldiers to the headquarters of the said army in said town of
Potenza and kept the balance of said day and the ensuing night in a room
at said headquarters; that on the next day, the 23d of April, 1889, this
deponent was taken by two soldiers to the town of Alexandria in said
Kingdom of Italy, arriving at said town of Alexandria on the 27th day of
April, 3889; that immediately upon the arrival of this deponent at the
said town of Alexandria this deponent was put into a cell in a jail in
said town of Alexandria.
That the said cell in said jail in which this deponent was confined was a
dark cell about 50 feet under ground. The said cell was about 8 feet
long by 8 feet wide, with heavy iron gratings; the sides of said cell
were of stone, and the floor was of asphalt or cement, and there was no
window to said cell, and the same was damp and unhealthy. No light nor
air could penetrate said cell, except through the iron gratings through
the passage which led to said cell, which passage was reached by stone
steps from above. That there was no bed or furniture of any description
in said cell, except a wooden bench about 7 feet long and 3½ feet wide.
That no bedding or blankets of any kind were provided for deponent, and
deponent was compelled to sleep on said wooden bench and thereby
suffered greatly from the dampness and coldness. That deponent was
confined in said cell for a period of 30 days and during that time was
given one-half a loaf of bread per day and nothing else for food,
having, however, plenty of water. That at the time deponent was placed
in said cell he was told he was thus imprisoned because he had not
returned to Italy when he had arrived at the age of 21 years and served
4 years in the army. That during said time this deponent was so
imprisoned in said jail as aforesaid he was not allowed to communicate
with his said wife or family or anyone else. That during the said
confinement of this deponent in said cell he underwent great mental and
bodily suffering.
[Page 542]
And this deponent further says that about a week after he was placed in
said cell deponent surreptitiously wrote a letter to the United States
consul at Rome, in the said Kingdom of Italy, informing said consul of
his arrest and detention and of his rights as a citizen of the United
States, and requesting said consul to obtain his release. That
thereafter deponent received a reply from said consul stating that said
consul had attempted to obtain deponent’s release but could not, and
that he, said consul, could do nothing further.
And this deponent further says that at the expiration of 1 month from the
time this deponent was placed in said cell deponent was taken from his
said cell and forced to serve as a common soldier in regiment eighty-six
of infantry, in company twelve, said company being under the command of
one Captain Frassinesi. That immediately upon the release of this
deponent from said cell, deponent told said Captain Frassinesi that he
had no right to keep deponent a prisoner and make deponent serve in said
army, as deponent was a citizen of the United States and had lived in
the United States since he was 10 years of age, and at the same time
showed to said Captain Frassinesi his said certificate of naturalization
as a citizen of the United States. That said Captain Frassinesi told
deponent said certificate would afford deponent no protection.
And this deponent further says that he was forced to serve in said army
5½ months. That during the whole time of deponent’s said service his
food was poor in quality and insufficient in quantity. That deponent
suffered great hardships during the time of his said service, both
bodily and mentally. That at the expiration of the said period of 5½
months this deponent received a leave of absence from said regiment for
the period of 15 days, and thereupon deponent left the said town of
Alexandria and went to the city of Genoa, in said Kingdom of Italy. That
at the said city of Genoa deponent went on board a French ship bound for
Zanzibar, Africa, and asked one of the officers of said ship to help
this deponent escape, deponent telling the said officer that deponent
was a citizen of the United States and was forced to serve in the said
army of Italy, at the same time showing said officer deponent’s said
certificate of naturalization as a citizen of the United States. That
upon deponent’s paying 60 francs deponent was allowed to take passage in
said ship to Zanzibar.
Upon the arrival of this deponent at Zanzibar, deponent having no money,
deponent wrote to his said wife at said town of Spynosa, asking his said
wife to send deponent money to enable deponent to leave Zanzibar.
That thereafter this deponent received $60 from his said wife, and upon
receipt of said $60 this deponent took passage for Marseilles, France;
that deponent was detained 4 days in said city of Marseilles, France,
and then this deponent took passage on the ship Edam for the city of New York, arriving in said city of New
York on the 12th day of December, 1889.
And this deponent further says that his treatment by the said consul of
labor, as hereinbefore set forth, was wrongful, unlawful, and illegal,
and in violation of his rights as a citizen of the United States; that
the imprisonment of this deponent in “a dark cell for 1 month by the
said Italian authorities, as hereinbefore set forth, was forcible,
wrongful, unlawful, and illegal, and in violation of the rights of this
deponent as a citizen of the United States; that this deponent was
forcibly, wrongfully, and illegally, and in violation of the rights of
this deponent as a citizen of the United States forced to serve in the
army of the said Kingdom of Italy by the authorities of said Kingdom of
Italy, as hereinbefore set forth.
And this deponent further says, by reason of said forcible, wrongful, and
illegal imprisonment of this deponent as hereinbefore set forth, this
deponent was not only deprived of his liberty, but was injured in his
person, character, and reputation, and was prevented from attending to
his necessary affairs and business during the period of 6½ months, and
during the whole of said time suffered greatly from the want of
sufficient food and bodily injuries, and injuries to the feelings of
this deponent, to the damage of this deponent in the sum of $50,000.
And this deponent further says that since the return of this deponent to
New York as aforesaid, this deponent has received a letter from his said
wife, dated at the said town of Spynosa, informing this deponent that
the said authorities of the said Kingdom of Italy will not grant to
deponent’s said wife a passport allowing deponent’s said wife to depart
from said Kingdom of Italy, but wrongfully, illegally, and unjustly
detain said wife of this deponent in said Kingdom of Italy; that said
authorities of said Kingdom of Italy have informed the said wife of this
deponent, as deponent is informed and believes, that the said wife of
this deponent will be detained in the said Kingdom of Italy by the
authorities of said Kingdom until this deponent returns to said Kingdom
of Italy.
And further this deponent saith not.
Nicolino Mileo.
Sworn to before me this 7th day of January, 1890.
Frank O’Byrne,
Commissioner of Deeds, New York City.
[Page 543]
State of New York, City and County of New York, ss:
I, Edward F. Reilly, clerk of the city and county of New York, and also
clerk of the supreme court for the said city and county, being a court
of record, do hereby certify that Frank O’Byrne, before whom the annexed
deposition was taken, was, at the time of taking the same, a
commissioner of deeds of New York, dwelling in said city and county,
duly appointed and sworn, and authorized to administer oaths to be used
in any court in said State and for general purposes; that I am well
acquainted with the handwriting of such commissioner, and that his
signature thereto is genuine, as I verily believe.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
the said court and county the 15th day of January, 1890.
[l. s.] |
Edward F. Reilly,
Clerk.
|
United States of America, State of New York:
The people of the State of New York, by the grace of God
free and independent, to all to whom these presents shall come,
greeting:
Know ye that we, having examined the records and files of our court of
common pleas for the city and county of New York, do find there
remaining of record a certain copy of naturalization certificate and
affidavit in the words and figures following, to wit:
[Court of common pleas for the city and county of New
York.]
In the matter of the application of Nicolino Mileo, by
occupation clerk, to be admitted a citizen of the United States of
America. Applicant born February, 1860; applicant arrived in United
States January, 1871. Witness became acquainted with applicant January,
1871.
State of New York, City and County of New York, ss:
Nicolino Mileo, the above-named applicant, being duly sworn, says that he
resides at No. 526 Broome street, in the city of New York; that he has
arrived at the age of 21 years; that he has resided in the United States
3 years next preceding his arrival at that age, and has continued to
reside therein to the present time; that he has resided 5 years within
the United States, including the 3 years of his minority and 1 year, at
least, immediately preceding this application, within the State of New
York; and that for 2 years next preceding this application it has been
bona fide his intention to become a citizen of the United States.
Nicolino Mileo,
Sworn in open court this 16th day of September, 1884.
Nathl. Jarvis, Jr.,
Clerk.
State of New York, City and County of New York, ss:
Morris Flaredy, being duly sworn, says that he resides at No. 71 Sullivan
street, in the city of New York, and is by occupation musician, and that
he is well acquainted with the above-named applicant; and that the said
applicant has resided in the United States for 3 years next preceding
his arrival at the age of 21 years; that he has continued to reside
therein to the present time; that he has resided 5 years within the
United States, including the 3 years of his minority, and in the State
of New York 1 year, at least, immediately preceding this application;
and that during that time he has behaved as a man of good moral
character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United
States, and well disposed to the good order and nappiness of the same;
and deponent verily believes that for 3 years next preceding this
application it has been bona fide the intention of the said applicant to
become a citizen of the United States.
Morris Flaredy.
Sworn in open court this 16th day of September, 1884.
Nathl. Jarvis, Jr.,
Clerk.
State of New York, City and County of New York, ss:
I, Nicolino Mileo, the above-named applicant, do declare on oath that it
is bona fide my intention, and has been for 2 years next preceding this
application, to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce
forever all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate,
state, or sovereignty whatever, particularly to the King of Italy, of
whom I am now a subject.
Nicolino Mileo.
Sworn in open court this 16th day of September, 1884.
Nathl. Jarvis, Jr.,
Clerk.
[Page 544]
State of New York, City and County of New York, ss:
I, Nicolino Mileo, the above-named applicant, do solemnly swear that I
will support the Constitution of the United States, and that I do
absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity
to every foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and
particularly to the King of Italy, of whom I was before a subject.
Nicolino Mileo.
Sworn in open court this 16th day of September, 1884.
Nathl. Jarvis, Jr.,
Clerk.
At a special term of the court of common ples for the city and county of
New York, held in the court-house of the city of New York on the 16th
day of September, 1884.
Present: Hon. Henry Wilder Allen, judge.
In the matter of the application of the within-named applicant to be
admitted a citizen of the United States of America.
The said applicant appearing personally in court, producing the evidence
required by the acts of Congress, and having made such declaration and
renunciation, and having taken such oaths as are by the said acts
required, it is ordered by the said court that the said applicant be
admitted to be a citizen of the United States of America.
Enter.
H. W. A.,
J. C. C. P.
[Indorsement.]
New York common pleas. In the matter of Nicolino Mileo
on his naturalization. Proofs, etc. Filed inofen court September 16,
1884. Nathl. Jarvis, jr., clerk.
All which we have caused by these presents to be exemplified, and the
seal of our said court of common pleas to be hereunto affixed.
Witness Richard L. Larremore and presiding judge of our said court of
common pleas for the city and county of New York, at the court-house in
the city of New York, the 15th day of January, in the year of our Lord
1890, and in the one hundred and fourteenth year of the independence of
the United States of America.
I, Richard L. Larremore, judge and presiding judge of the court of common
pleas for the city and county of New York, do hereby certify that S.
Jones, whose name is subscribed to the preceding exemplification, is the
clerk of the said court of common pleas, duly appointed and sworn, and
that full faith and credit are due to his official acts. I further
certify that the seal affixed to the said exemplification is the seal of
the said court of common pleas, and that the attestation thereof is in
due form of law.
Dated, New York, January 15, 1890.
R. L. Larremore.
State of New York, City and County of New York, ss:
I, S. Jones, clerk of the court of common pleas for the city and county
of New York, do hereby certify that Richard L. Larremore, whose name is
subscribed to the preceding certificate, is a judge and the presiding
judge of the court of common pleas for the city and county of New York,
duly elected, commissioned and qualified, and that the signature of said
judge to said certificate is genuine.
In testimony whereof, I have hereto set my
hand and affixed the seal of the said court this 15th day of January,
1890.
[
l. s.]
S.
Jones,
Clerk.
[Inclosure 3 in No. 55.]
Mr. Kennedy to Mr.
Blaine.
Washington
,
April 11, 1890.
(Received April 17.)
Sir: I have the honor to submit a supplemental
affidavit, verified by the claimant in this case on the 15th instant,
and herewith inclosed, from which it appears that his father, Francisco
Mileo, in the year 1875, when he had been resident and engaged in
business in the city of New York on his own account for about 5 years,
declared his intention of becoming a citizen of the United States. He
seems to have purposed bona fide to remain permanently in this country,
and, as matter of fact, he did remain until the year 1882. New York was
therefore his domicile from 1875 to 1882, if not from 1870.
Having been born in 1860, Nicolino was 18 years old in 1878, and of age
in 1881, at both of which dates his father, as we have seen, was
domiciled in New York. And, as Nicolino was of age in 1881 and free to
choose his own domicile, it was, of course, unaffected by the return of
his father to Italy in 1882.
If Francisco (the father) had returned to Italy to reside permanently
while Nicolino (the son) was under 18 years of age, and had left him to
shift for himself in New York, it might have been claimed by the Italian
Government that, when he reached the age of liability to military
service, as prescribed in Italy, if that age were less than 21 years,
his domicile was legally in that country, being fixed by the domicile of
his father; but no such claim, it is apprehended, can be sustained, or
even suggested, upon the facts disclosed by the supplemental affidavit.
Father and son had been living together in New York for 11 years when
the latter became of age, and so they lived for a year or more
subsequently.
I shall be glad to be informed, if agreeable to you, of any action that
has been or may be taken by the Department in this case, and I have the
honor to be, etc.,
Crammond Kennedy,
Of Counsel for Claimant.
In the matter of the claim of Nicolino Mileo against the Government of
Italy.
State of New York, City and County of New York, ss:
Nicolino Mileo, being duly sworn, deposes and says he is the petitioner
herein; that in the year 1870 deponent came to the city of New York with
his said father, Francisco Mileo, this deponent then being a minor of
the age of 10 years; that the said father of this deponent, Francisco
Mileo, shortly after his arrival in said city of New York, was engaged
in the grocery business at No. 526 Broome street, in said city of New
York, and continued in said grocery business at said place for about 3
years, viz, until the year 1873, when said Francisco Mileo failed in
business; that thereafter the said Francisco Mileo was employed as a
journeyman carpenter and continued in that employment for about the
period of 3 years, to wit, until the year 1876; that in or about the
year 1876, the said Francisco Mileo returned to Italy for the purpose of
settling an estate left to him by a relative and was absent from said
city of New York for about the period of 3 months, returning to said
city of New York in or about the latter part of the year 1876 or the
first part of the year 1877.
That thereafter the said Francisco Mileo again engaged in the grocery
business at said number 526 Broome street, in said city of New York;,
and continued in said grocery business at said place for about the
period of 6 years. That in or about the year 1882 the said Francisco
Mileo sold out said grocery business and returned to the said Kingdom of
Italy, and since said year has resided and still resides in said Kingdom
of Italy.
[Page 547]
And this deponent farther says that in or about the year 1875 the said
Francisco Mileo, as this deponent was informed by the said Francisco
Mileo and verily believes, declared his intentions of becoming a citizen
of the United States, but never perfected his citizenship, although up
to the year 1882, when said Francisco Mileo returned to the said Kingdom
of Italy, the said Francisco Mileo frequently told this deponent that he
intended to become a citizen of the United States by perfecting his
naturalization as a citizen of the United States.
And this deponent further says that, from his arrival in the said city of
New York in the year 1870 to the departure of his said father Francisco
Mileo from the said city of New York to the said Kingdom of Italy, this
deponent lived with his said father in the said city of New York.
And this deponent further says that in or about the year 1873 this
deponent went to school in one of the public schools of the said city of
New York, to wit, the public school on Dominick street, in said city,
and continued attending the night sessions of said school for the period
of 1 year.
That in the year 1874 deponent was in the employ of one D. E. Balis at
No. 685 Broadway, in said city, and continued in the employ of said D.
E. Balis at said place for the period of about 3 years, to wit, the year
1877. That thereafter deponent was in the employ of the Rossmore Hotel,
at the corner of Broadway and Forty-second street in said city, and
continued in the employ of said hotel until the fall of the year 1879,
when deponent secured employment with Charles D. Shepard, as
hereinbefore set forth in the affidavit of this deponent heretofore
made, and in the affidavit of the said Charles D. Shepard on file in the
Department of State.
And this deponent further says that this deponent as a boy always
intended to become a citizen of the United States, and that the said
father of this deponent frequently told and advised this deponent to
become a citizen of the United States, and educated this deponent with
the purpose of having this deponent a citizen of the United States. That
this deponent as a boy always intended to reside in the United States
and always intended to make his home in the said city of New York. That
when deponent went to Italy he had no intention of residing in said
Kingdom of Italy, but merely went for the purpose of selling the
property mentioned in the affidavit heretofore made by this deponent,
and immediately returning to the said city of New York.
Sworn to before me this 15th day of April, 1890.
Lamon McLoughlin,
Notary Public, New York
County.