Baron Fava to Mr. Olney.
Washington, December 31, 1896.
Mr. Secretary of State: In compliance with the desire expressed by you to me, I hastened to communicate to my Government the contents of the note which you were pleased to address to me on the 27th ultimo relative to the deplorable lynching of three Italian subjects at Hahnville, La.
I am now instructed (as hereby I have the honor to do) to submit to you for a more thorough examination of the case, in that enlightened spirit and with that uprightness which characterize you, some facts and observations which I am convinced will radically change the views expressed by you to me.
I would remark, in the first place, that four months after the occurrence of lynching at Hahnville, and after the magistrates of Louisiana have established the Italian nationality of the persons lynched in the report addressed by them on the 15th of August last to the governor of that State, your excellency presents the question now for the first time in a new and different aspect; and, proposing hereafter to consider the views which have just been communicated to me by you, I will begin by examining the circumstances brought to your notice by the special agent whom you sent to New Orleans to ascertain the facts connected with this new lynching.
You will admit, I think, that however prominent and respectable Messrs. Gueymard and Roxino were, that can have no importance. Of still less importance are the suspicions that were entertained concerning the murdered Italians, since it is a fundamental principle of law and justice which is accepted in all countries, and in none so scrupulously practiced as in the United States, that any person is presumed to be innocent until he has been found guilty by a competent court.
Taking this principle as a basis, I must conclude, as you will conclude with me, that the three persons lynched at Hahnville should have been considered innocent of the crimes of which they were charged until the courts, on the basis of irrefragable evidence and testimony, had pronounced them guilty. It will be well in this connection to recall the cases which recently occurred at New Orleans, of Tommaso Oalamia and Rocco Bonura, who were threatened with lynching because they were suspected of complicity in the murder of Mrs. Landry, and who were found not guilty by the court at Plaquemine, La., and discharged on the 30th of September and 31st of October last. I may add, although after what I have already said I attach but little importance to this, that the suspicious circumstances alleged against Salardino might easily have been explained by him and he would have been able to clear himself if an opportunity to do so had been offered him in a regular trial, [Page 413] and that the suspicions against Arena and Venturella were trivial and insufficient, being based merely upon a pretended feeling of rivalry in business in the case of Roxino. The fact that the judge, so far from requiring a large amount of bail (as you say he did), required Venturella and Arena to furnish bail in the sum of $1,000 only—a very moderate amount for two persons charged with the crime of murder—shows that the magistrate was not very strongly convinced that the charge against them was well founded.
It is possible that those three persons had committed the crimes of which they were suspected; but what can not be doubted is that the only persons who were really and certainly guilty of murder are the cowardly assassins who, without let or hindrance on the part of the authorities, and being rather encouraged by their conviction that the inquest over the murdered men would be held in a superficial and perfunctory way, as it was, massacred three defenseless Italians, for whose safety the authorities of the country were directly responsible.
The statements made by your special agent in regard to the lynching, although designed to justify the local authorities and to free them from all blame, really confirm their unjustifiable negligence.
The agent states that when the murder of Mr. Gueymard became known the excitement was so great that lynching was freely talked of among the crowd which had assembled. The feeling was so intense among the people that the sheriff was obliged to threaten to shoot the first man that should lay his hand upon the prisoners, and so great was his fear that the prisoners would be lynched that he proposed to conceal Salardino that night in the woods. Nothing could furnish stronger proof of the turbulence and agitation of the people. And yet the sheriff, instead of taking his prisoner to a distant locality, where there was no reason to fear the violence of those who sought to take his life, preferred to take him back to Hahnville, to remove the guards from the jail three days afterwards, and prudently to retire to a place where he could not be disturbed or informed in time of any attempt at lynching that might be made, thus abandoning the victims to the tender mercies of the assassins who were on the watch. Strange coincidence! He abandoned the prisoners on the same day on which the lynching took place and but a few hours before the deed was committed. It was certainly impossible better to facilitate the operations of the lynchers, and there is as much connivance and consent in a negative as in a positive act.
It is evident, moreover, that nothing was done to detect the guilty parties. It is true that the grand jury met and waited for the criminals to come forward and accuse themselves. As, however, they failed to do so for some good reason, the jury at once proceeded to condemn lynching and then adjourned. No detective was put on the track of the assassins; no attempt was made by the police to discover them; and if the district attorney did not succeed in securing any information that could lead to the detection of the lynchers, this was due to the fact that no serious, courageous, or even partial attempt was made to that end.
Judicial proceedings like those had by the authorities of the State of Louisiana can not do otherwise than tend to encourage similar outrages in future. I refer to the future, because you say, in your note, that such unfortunate occurrences will frequently happen, and that it is consequently important to agree, without delay “to the just and proper rule for the determination of all like questions hereafter arising.”
I have dwelt upon the circumstances of the lynching, as reported to [Page 414] you by the special agent, because he evidently seeks to justify the defective proceedings of the civil and judicial authorities of Louisiana. It was necessary clearly to establish the state of things for the additional reason that your excellency has, in a certain way, availed yourself of the information furnished by the aforesaid agent as a preamble in order subsequently to direct attention to the special features connected with the personal status of the persons lynched.
In this connection I must in the first place establish the fact, which is not denied in your note, that the men lynched at Hahnville were not citizens of the United States. Nevertheless, you inform me that the Federal Government, while it reserves its decision on the subject, is inclined to think that there are serious reasons to doubt any right or duty on the part of the Italian Government against that of the United States resulting from the lynching at Hahnville.
These reasons are the following: That one or perhaps all three of the men lynched had taken out their first naturalization papers (i. e., declared their intention to become naturalized); that all three had voted in the State of Louisiana; that all three had resided uninterruptedly in the aforesaid State without any apparent fixed intention to return to their native country.
You state these three reasons, and assert that, while the three men lynched did not in any way contribute to the prosperity and wealth of Italy, and while they even avoided obeying the laws relating to military duty, they took an active part in the political life of this country, where, as electors, they had become, according to the constitution and laws of Louisiana, as interpreted by that supreme court, citizens of that State.
I should extend this communication beyond the limits of a note if I undertook to quote the laws in force here and the opinions of American publicists in support of the principle that naturalization in the United States can not be granted otherwise than by the Federal laws exclusively, and not by State laws. It is not, moreover, for me to remind your excellency, who is so thoroughly versed in legal affairs, of the universally accepted doctrine that “mere declaration of intention does not confer citizenship.”
Whatever were the laws of Louisiana on this subject; whether they had taken out their first papers or not; whether they had voted as electors or not, Salardino, Arena, and Venturella were not citizens of the United States. In order to become so they would have had to comply with the provisions of section 2165 of the Revised Statutes, which regulates, uniformly, the concession of naturalization, which is granted in the United States by the national legislative power exclusively. I here cite the cases of Chirac v. Chirac (2 Wheaton, p. 269), and of Osborn v. The United States Bank (3 Wheaton, 287), in which Chief Justice Marshall expressed himself as follows:
“The power of naturalization, being exclusively in Congress, certainly ought not to be controverted.”
This view is fully stated in the legal memorandum which is herewith inclosed (Inclosure A). In this paper, after examining the question in the light of the constitution, laws, and jurisprudence of the State of Louisiana, Lawyer Chiapella says:
The alien elector has certain privileges in the matter of voting in Louisiana and in a few other States, granted to him in anticipation of a future naturalization, which may never ripen into citizenship, and that is all. But he has not yet crossed the Rubicon. He has not been naturalized under the act of Congress. He is still under the allegiance of the foreign Government, and competent to place himself under the ægis of its protection.
The foregoing is sufficient to show that Salardino, Arena, and Venturella, not having met the requirements of the provisions on the subject of naturalization which are contained in the Revised Statutes, had preserved the plenitude of their capacity as Italian subjects, and that, I repeat, in virtue of the laws of the United States. Nevertheless, but in a purely subordinate line, and without prejudice to the incontestable Italian nationality of the three aforesaid individuals, I do not hesitate to enter, with your excellency, upon an examination of the other special points of your note, relative to the status of the lynched persons.
It is stated by the special agent of your Department that Salardino, Arena and Venturella had voted at the political elections in Louisiana; that Arena had taken out his first naturalization papers, while it is to be presumed that the two others had done the same, as they also had presented themselves at the elections: and that all three had definitely fixed their domicile in the United States.
I do not know what were the sources of this information; as, however, they are wholly at variance with that furnished the authorities of Louisiana, and with that which I have received from the Italian consulate at New Orleans, I must beg your excellency to inform me: (a) in what registers and under what date the three Italians are inscribed as electors; (b) from which of the five Federal courts of Louisiana Arena had received his first papers; (c) when, and to whom, the three Italians had declared that they had fixed their domicile in the United States.
As regards the first point, your excellency is aware that, in the report addressed by them on the 15th of August last to the governor of Louisiana, and transmitted to me by the Department of State with its note of the 28th of that month, not only did the judge and the district attorney of that State not mention the participation of the three individuals in the elections, or the circumstances of their alleged permanent domicile in the United States, but they made the following statement:
The registration lists of the parish do not contain the names of any of the three men as registered voters of the parish of St. Charles.
As regards the second point, I herewith inclose two affidavits (inclosure 1), in which Giuseppe Ventola, Bernardo Vitrano, Alfonso Salerno, Antonio Venturella, and Micasio Catalano declared, under oath, at the consulate of Italy at New Orleans, that not one of the three persons lynched had ever applied for or received his first naturalization papers, and that they consequently had never taken part as voters in the political elections of Louisiana.
I inclose two other affidavits (inclosure 2) wherein Natale Principato, Giuseppe Principato, Girolamo Albano, Lorito Scaletta, Antonio Venturella, Giuseppe Ventola, Bernardo Vitrano, and Alfonso Salerno declared, under oath, at the same consulate, that the three men who were lynched had always expressed the intention of going back to their families in Italy, and that more especially Venturella had been in treaty, a few days before his arrest, for the purchase of a passage ticket from New Orleans to Palermo.
The official report to which I refer, of the two Louisiana magistrates, and the sworn depositions inclosed herewith, made in the regular form at the Italian consulate, are conclusive, until contrary proof as to facts: (a) That none of the three men lynched was included in the electoral lists of the State of Louisiana; (b) that none of them had asked or obtained the first naturalization papers, and that it is, to say the least, doubtful whether one only, Arena, had obtained them; (c) and that all three men were residing here temporarily.
[Page 416]Your excellency will certainly agree with me in regarding those documents as having more weight and value than a mere contrary assertion.
But even if Salardino, Arena, and Venturella had voted at the elections, and even if the laws of Louisiana attached great importance to that fact, how could this affect the well-proved fact that they were not American citizens?
The first, Salardino, had resided fully twelve years in Louisiana, and even if he voted, he had not taken out either his first or second naturalization papers. Arena, according to the special agent, had only taken out his first papers, and his attempts to become an American citizen had stopped there. Venturella does not appear to have done even this, as the said special agent could not find either his certificate of first declaration or that of Salardino. All three had had time to ask for their first and second papers. Why did they not do so? The mere fact of having voted would not have conferred upon any of the three the right of citizenship, as is amply shown in the inclosed memorandum; and if they voted, they voted illegally, and probably because they had been misled by native-politicians in search of voters, legal or illegal.
But there is more to be said. The four Italians who were lynched at Walsenburg on the 14th of March, 1895, Francesco Ronchietto, Stanislao Vittone, Pietro Giacobino, and Antonio Gobette, had solemnly declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, and to renounce forever ail submission and allegiance to any foreign Prince, Potentate, State, or Sovereignty, and especially the King of Italy, and they all were in possession of their first naturalization papers. Notwithstanding this, and in spite of those solemn declarations, when I informed the Federal Government of the murders which had been committed, Mr. Uhl came to my house and expressed the President’s regret for that bloody act, and your honorable predecessor and your excellency yourself, deeply impressed with a sense of the duties which the Government of the Union has assumed toward a friendly power by virtue of treaties, did not raise the slightest objection; you all immediately recognized the Italian nationality of the four victims, and a suitable indemnity, recommended by your Department and by the President, was granted to the bereaved families. In view of this precedent, it can hardly be maintained that the subject to which you have now called my attention is one of those as to which the two Governments are entirely uncommitted.
And lastly, the fact that the three victims had been in the United States for several years can not be cited as a proof of their deliberate “animus manendi.” If they had not been residing here temporarily, as asserted by your note, they would have sent for their families, whom they had left in Italy, where they had their domicile, and whom they supported from here by their labor, Venturella his wife and seven children, Arena his wife and 4-year-old son, and Salardino his old father, who was unable to earn his living. Under these circumstances, and however long and continuous their absence from Italy might have been, it can not be said that they had transferred their domicile to Louisiana, nor had they no intention of returning to their native land, nor that they were not contributing to the resources and wealth of their own country. They had come here on business; that is to say, to provide by the fruits of their labor for the comfort of their wives, children, and parents, and they were thus contributing to the wealth of the country in which they had their home.
Nor is the other assertion, that they had withdrawn from military [Page 417] service, correct. By the two affidavits which I have the honor to submit to you (inclosures 5 and 6) the signers declare under oath:
- (a)
- That Giuseppe Venturella had performed his regular military service in the artillery, and that he landed in the United States with a regular passport in his possession.
- (b)
- That Salvatore Arena had not performed any military service, because, as an only son, he was enrolled in the third class, and that when he arrived in the United States he was in possession of a regular passport.
- (c)
- And lastly, that Lorenzo Salardino had never performed any military service, because he, too, as an only son, was enrolled in the third class, and that he came to the United States with a regular Italian passport.
I can not follow your excellency in the views expressed by you as to a Government demanding indemnity for injuries inflicted upon one of its own subjects, being the agent of said injured subject. In that case the American Government would be, near that of the Sultan, the agent of the missionaries, in behalf of whom it is now demanding indemnities. Every Government owes it to itself to protect, within the bounds of justice, its own subjects, however poor and humble, and it would otherwise lose the respect of civilized nations.
Referring to the other lynching which occurred in New Orleans in 1891, and which you mention in your note, I must correct a statement contained in that note, which statement is absolutely and entirely incorrect. Of the eleven persons who were victims of that savage slaughter, two were American citizens, four were undoubtedly Italian subjects, and the other five, who had only taken out their first papers, were justly regarded by the Royal consul at New Orleans as Italian subjects. By the pure, simple, and unreserved transmission to the Department of State, in my note of March 25, of the report of the said consul, I evidently and impliedly adopted his views on the subject. Otherwise I would have kept his report to myself. In consequence of its having been remarked to me in person at the Department of State that it was possible that those five persons had also taken out their last papers, I requested the consul to make new and closer investigations in the case. As the diplomatic rupture between the two countries occurred a few days afterwards, and as the consul’s replies did not reach me in time, I mentioned in my note of March 31 only the four Italians who were undoubtedly subjects of the King. But still I never had a thought of abandoning the other five if it should be found that they had only their first papers. In fixing the indemnity at $25,000 the United States Government must, therefore, certainly have admitted that those five persons were Italian subjects, in spite of the fact that they had procured their first naturalization papers.
I think that I have shown by the foregoing remarks that the particular points in your excellency’s note, which I have examined with all sincerity of purpose, are insufficient to induce my Government to desist from taking that just action which is called for by the murder of the Italian subjects at Hahnville; nor can they in any way disprove the incontrovertible fact of the Italian nationality of Arena, Venturella, and Salardino. Besides, this fact was immediately admitted by the judicial authorities of Louisiana themselves, in their report of August 15, and, on the ground of that report, by the Department of State in the telegram sent by it to the governor on the 29th of August. Like the said five persons who were lynched at New Orleans in 1891; like those of 1895 at Walsenburg, Arena, Venturella, and Salardino were [Page 418] Italian subjects. And it was precisely owing to this undoubted personal status of theirs that I had to insist in our interviews—and the high officials who took your place temporarily last summer likewise adhered to them—that “in dealing with the present case the New Orleans lynching of 1890 and the Colorado murders of 1895 should serve as precedents.”
In view of the proven Italian nationality of the three subjects of the King who were lynched at Hahnville, I do not see, in conclusion, any other way of arriving at a legal, just, and final settlement of the dispute than that indicated by the treaties, the only one consistent with the dignity of great nations.
The entire solution of the difficulty is found in the treaty in force between the United States and Italy; and by virtue of the treaty itself, and with a confidence which I have long cherished of the firm resolution of the President and the United States Government to have international agreements strictly observed, I have the honor to again present the request which I have already repeatedly presented to your excellency, that the guilty parties be sought and brought to justice; that steps be taken to prevent the repetition of such atrocious crimes, and that, at the same time, just and adequate compensation be made to the families of the victims.
Accept, etc.,