Mr. Blaine to Mr. Porter.

No. 55.]

Sir: I have to call your attention to the complaint of Nicolino Mileo, a naturalized citizen of the United States, against the Government of Italy, alleging harsh punishment on a charge of evasion of military service and interference with the personal freedom of his wife, Gaetaua Mileo, who is stated to be prevented from quitting Italy to rejoin her husband in this country.

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:

12. Loss of citizenship in the cases stated in the preceding article does not exempt from the obligations of military service, nor from the penalty inflicted on anyone who bears arms against his native country.

The preceding article 11 provides, in its second paragraph, that Italian citizenship is lost—

(2) By naturalization in a foreign country.

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:

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 538] recognized. To subject him to such responsibility it should be a case of actual desertion or refusal to enter into the army after having been actually drafted into the service of the Government to which at the time he owed allegiance.

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:

The feeling in the United States, as you are aware, is very strong against compulsory military or naval service of naturalized citizens in countries where they were born. This sentiment tbe Government would be bound to respect. Cases of the kind frequently occurred with the German States prior to the naturalization treaties with them. Since then, however, it is believed that no difficulty upon the subject has happened. It is a matter of regret, in the interest of friendly relations with Italy, that she should have declined our overtures for a similar convention.

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.

[Page 539]

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.

I am, etc.,

James G. Blaine.
[Inclosure 1 in No. 55.]

Mr. Kennedy to Mr. Blaine.

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. 12061208.)

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.

[l. s.] S. Jones,
Clerk.

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.


[l. s.]
S. Jones,
Clerk.
[Inclosure 2 in No. 55.]

Mr. Kennedy to Mr. Blaine.

Sir: The alleged conduct of the Italian authorities in this case raises issue so sharply and thoroughly with the Government of the United States upon the right of expatriation, that it has seemed to me important that you should be assured of the complainant’s trustworthiness and integrity. I have accordingly the honor to inclose three affidavits in regard to Mileo’s respectability and especially his reputation for veracity.

[Page 545]

It appears from the affidavit of Mr. Humphrey H. Leavitt, late United States consul at Managua (testimonials to whose high character from some of the most distinguished men in the country are on file in the Department of State), that he has been acquainted with Mileo for more than 10 years, and that during this period Mileo has borne “a good character for veracity,” and, in Mr. Leavitt’sofinion, is “a sober and industrious citizen.” Mr. Leavitt adds that “he drew the affidavit of said Mileo, hereinbefore presented to the Department of State,” and “verily believes all the statements therein contained to be true.”

Upon an acquaintance of 7 years with Mileo, Mr. Edwin R. Leavitt corroborates his brother’s testimony in regard to Mileo’s veracity and trustworthiness, and Mr. William A. Persch, who has known Mileo “for over 10 years,” testifies to the same effect. With those who are acquainted with the Messrs. Leavitt, the fact that they are attorneys for the claimant would rather increase than lessen the weight of their testimony in his favor.

I suppose that under the act of July 27, 1868 (15 Stats., 223, 224), the President is not required to report the case to Congress until he shall have made such representations to the Italian Government as it may seem to him proper, whether by way of complaint or in reply to any denial or defense which that Government may interpose.

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:

H. H. Leavitt, being duly sworn, says he is a native-born citizen of the United States, and is a citizen of the State of New York, and is an attorney and counselor-at-law, duly admitted to practice as such in said State, and is one of the attorneys for the above-named Nicolino Mileo, having his office at No. 280 Broadway, New York City. And this deponent further says that he has been acquainted with said Mileo for over 10 years, and since the year 1886 said Mileo has been a client of the firm of this deponent. And this deponent further says that during the said period of deponent’s acquaintance with said Mileo the said Mileo bore a good character for veracity and is a sober and industrious citizen. And this deponent further says that he drew the affidavit of said Mileo hereinbefore presented to the Department of State, and that deponent verily believes all the statements therein contained to be true. That deponent cross-examined the said Mileo closely and minutely as to the facts stated in said affidavit, and said Mileo answered the questions of this deponent in a straightforward and truthful manner.

H. H. Leavitt.

Sworn to before me this 24th day of February, 1890.

[seal.] Frank O’Byrne,
Commissioner of Deeds, New York City.

City, County, and State of New York, ss:

Edwin R. Leavitt, being duly sworn, says that he is a member of the firm of Leavitt & Leavitt, the attorneys for the petitioner herein, Nicolino Mileo; that deponent has known said Mileo since about the year 1883; has frequently seen him during that period, and has known and knows him to be a person of good and reputable and truthful character and an industrious and law-abiding citizen of said State; that deponent has heard said Mileo’s statement of the facts pertaining to his visit to Italy, as declared in his deposition herein, having interrogated him personally concerning the same; that from deponent’s knowledge of the said Mileo’s character and his personal acquaintance with him, deponent verily believes that said Mileo’s statements and depositions are true in each and every particular.

Edwin R. Leavitt.

Sworn to before me this 25th day of February, 1890.

[seal.] Frank O’Byrne,
Commissioner of Deeds, New York City.

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:

William A. Persch, being duly sworn, says he is a native-born citizen of the United States and a citizen of the State of New York, residing in the city of New York, and is in the business of insurance, having his office at No. 287 Broadway, in said city of New York.

[Page 546]

And this deponent further says that he is acquainted with the above-named Nico lino Mileo, and has known said Mileo for over 10 years; that deponent first became acquainted with the said Mileo in the year 1879; that at the said time said Mileo had the charge of certain billiard rooms at No. 1227 Broadway, in said city, and continued in charge of said billiard rooms until about the year 1887; that thereafter and until the first part of the year 1889 said Mileo had charge of the billiard rooms at No. 389 Sixth avenue, in said city.

And this deponent further says that during the said time this deponent was acquainted with said Mileo the said Mileo bore a good reputation for veracity and was sober and industrious.

William A. Persch.

Sworn to before me this 24th day of February, 1890.

[seal.]
Frank O’Byrne,
Commissioner of Deeds, New York City.
[Inclosure 3 in No. 55.]

Mr. Kennedy to Mr. Blaine.

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.

Nicolino Mileo.

Sworn to before me this 15th day of April, 1890.

Lamon McLoughlin,
Notary Public, New York County.