Mr. Hay to Count Vinci.
Washington, September 1, 1899.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 20th ultimo in further relation to the citizenship of the persons of Italian birth lynched at Tallulah, La., in July last. Referring to the statement in Mr. Adee’s note of the 9th ultimo, that the documents issued by the district court of the seventh district of Louisiana and parish of Madison, copies of which accompanied the note from your embassy of August 8, appeared to be the full and final record of a competent court admitting Charles Difatta, Frank Difatta, and Seha Deferach to citizenship of the United States, you set forth the reasons which have induced your embassy to reach a different conclusion.
Careful consideration has been given to your objections to the judgments of naturalization mentioned in your note, in which it is argued that the said judgments “do not appear strictly regular or such as to confer full United States citizenship,” and that the “documents issued by the district court of Louisiana must either be regarded as the first naturalization papers—and in that case the decision of the said district court is irregular and void—or they must be regarded as second and final naturalization papers, and the irregularity is evident in this case likewise, because it appears from the documents themselves that the first declaration of intention * * * was not made * * * until the very day on which the said district court” rendered the judgments of citizenship.
The record is silent on the point whether the first declaration was made or not, and therefore I can not concur in your statement that [Page 459] “it appears from the documents themselves that the first declaration of intention was made.”
Are the documents, then, to be regarded as the first or the final naturalization papers?
The right and the ceremony of naturalization are exclusively determined by the domestic laws of the country according the privilege of naturalization. The second clause of section 2165, Revised Statutes of the United States, prescribes what the applicant shall declare at the time of his application to be admitted, “which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court.” These proceedings were recorded by the clerk of the court in these cases, and also the judgment of the court that the applicant “is declared to be a citizen of the United States and of the State of Louisiana.” The judgment was therefore in conformity with the statutes.
In the case of Stark v. The Chesapeake Insurance Company (7 Cranch, 421) the same contention was made in substance as in your note, but the Supreme Court decided adversely to the contention. In the case of The Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company v. Tisdale (91 U. S., 238) the court was of opinion that a certificate of naturalization from a court of record on proper proof of residence and age is valid; and in the case of Campbell v. Gordon (6 Cranch, 179) the opinion was expressed by the court that it was not necessary to the validity of the naturalization that the record should show that proof was made of the moral character of the applicant, although proof of such fact is required by the third clause of said section.
It therefore follows that the two said applications and the record thereof, being in conformity with the second clause of said section, are, together with the said judgments, to be regarded as the final naturalization papers and as sufficient proof of the naturalization of said parties.
Be pleased to accept, etc.,