Mr. Blaine to Baron Fava.
Washington , November 18, 1890.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your, note of the 8th of August last, with which you inclose a copy of a communication addressed to you on the 27th of July by the royal ministry of foreign affairs as a response to the note which I had the honor to address you [Page 573] on the 23d of June last in relation to the refusal of the Government of Italy to deliver up, under the extradition treaty with the United States, certain Italian subjects charged with grave crimes in this country.
In the reply of the ministry of foreign affairs, it is observed that Mr. Damiani confines himself to inviting attention to certain communications which passed between the legation of the United States at Eome and the royal ministry from January to April, 1889, looking to an amendment of the treaty, and to the definition of the question of citizenship, which is necessarily involved. The most important of those communications is a note addressed by the royal ministry to Mr. Stallo on April 27, 1889, a copy of which you inclose. The Department, while not unacquainted with this correspondence, did not wish it to be regarded as an evidence of the abandonment by this Government of what it considers to be its rights under the treaty, and for this reason, as well as for the reason that the Government of Italy had presented a formal argument to show that our claim was not well founded, it was deemed expedient to define our position and to state in full our reasons for maintaining it.
The note to Mr. Stallo of April 27, 1889, has been carefully considered, but this Department has not been able to regard it as satisfactory. It is proposed, after excepting the citizens or subjects of the contracting parties from theoferation of the treaty, to add the following article:
Naturalization obtained in either of the contracting states by the person charged with or convicted of a crime, after its commission, shall be no bar to a demand for his extradition or to his surrender. Nevertheless, the extradition may be refused if 5 years have elapsed since the naturalization was obtained and if the person whose extradition is demanded has, during such time, had his domicile in the state to which the demand is addressed.
The purport of this proposed article appears to be that, while citizenship is recognized as a ground for refusing extradition, citizenship by naturalization can not confer the right to demand it. Hence, if a native Italian who had been naturalized in the United States should commit a crime and seek asylum in Italy, it does not appear that the Government of Italy would recognize our right to demand his surrender. The only effect conceded to naturalization is that, when joined with a subsequent residence of 5 years, it may afford a ground to withhold extradition. It thus confers the right to refuse but not to demand.
This being the substance of the article proposed for insertion in the extradition treaty, it becomes important to consider the observations of the Royal Government found in the note to Mr. Stallo upon the subject of a convention of naturalization. In this relation the royal ministry of foreign affairs states that the Government of the King has no objection to taking as the basis of negotiation the convention now in force between the United States and Belgium, although certain modifications are considered necessary to bring it into harmony with the laws of Italy.
The first of these modifications is an express declaration that naturalization shall not be recognized which has not been acquired with the consent of the individual, but solely by operation of law. The reason stated for the desire to insert this declaration is thatin the United States a foreigner may under certain circumstances be considered, independently of his own will, as an American citizen. It is proper to say that the Royal Government must have been misinformed on this subject. The naturalization laws of the United States are based upon the voluntary principle, and such a declaration would be as unnecessary in this country as it is said to be in Italy.
Naturalization merely byoferation of law is unknown in the United [Page 574] States, and this Government has always protested against the application of such a rule to its citizens in other countries.
The second modification desired is an article in which this Government shall agree to the enforcement against its citizens, if they set foot in Italy, of the provisions of the Italian code which relate to the punishment of foreigners for acts committed outside of that country. The specific stipulation suggested is that the penal provisions applicable in the case of a foreigner shall be enforced in respect to offenses committed after the date of the naturalization of the perpetrator. While this stipulation bears the form of a reservation in respect to a particular class of persons, yet it contains, in effect, an acknowledgment of the very extensive jurisdiction claimed under the Italian statutes to punish foreigners for their conduct outside of the Kingdom, and even in their own country. The Government of the United States is unable to assent to this. It has always maintained that for acts committed within its jurisdiction its citizens were answerable to no other law than its own. It could not, therefore, make a concession so extraordinary as that suggested.
The third modification desired relates to the performance of military service. The provisions of the Belgian treaty on this subject are brief and general, and this Government does not object to the substitution of other and different stipulations, provided that they conserve the principle of voluntary change of allegiance, which the Royal Government expresses its wish to secure, and do not exact duties and impose penalties inconsistent with the change of nationality. While the language of the note of the ministry of foreign affairs is not entirely explicit on this subject, yet it is not understood to mean that a person who, having been naturalized as a citizen of the United States, owes allegiance and duty to this country is at the same time to continue to owe the allegiance and duty of a subject to His Majesty the King of Italy. This would be naturalization without change of allegiance and at once destroy the object of the treaty.
In this relation, I inclose a copy of the second article of the naturalization treaty with Austria-Hungary, concluded September 20, 1870, for the consideration of the Royal Government.
Accept, etc.,