yesterday at the consulta, appear to me to be so important that I beg leave to submit the following memorandum: The position taken by your excellency, as I understood it, was that the Italian Government could not extradite Paladini because he was an Italian subject, though the crime with which he stands charged was committed in the United States. And your excellency was under the impression that the treaty between Italy and the United States relating to the extradition of criminals (treaty of March 23, 1868) contained a provision to the effect that its terms should not apply to citizens or subjects of the state upon which the demand of extradition is made. As I had the honor to observe yes. terday, my recollection differed from that of your excellency, it being my strong belief that the treaty referred to contained no exception in favor of the citizens or subjects of either state. I have now again carefully examined the treaty of extradition concluded between Italy and the United States on March 23, 1868, and am able to state with entire confidence that its stipulations require a surrender of all persons convicted of or charged with crime in the demanding state, irrespective of the question of their citizenship or allegiance to the asylum state. As I understand it, your excellency agrees with me that international rights and duties concerning the extradition of fugitives from justice are now purely the results of treaty convention. I am aware that in former times it was the policy of many European states (among which were Great Britain and France) never to deliver up their subjects to a foreign state, but to assume jurisdiction to try them for crime wherever committed. But this policy is no longer universal, and in Great Britain and France at least (as well as in Switzerland and many other states) it has been definitively abandoned. On the 9th day of August, 1842, a treaty was concluded between Great Britain and the United States providing for the "giving up" (i. e., extradition)" of criminals fugitive from justice in certain cases," in which there was no exception as to citizens or subjects of the state in which the criminal had sought refuge; and ever since that time Great Britain has always surrendered fugitives from justice upon the demand of the Government of the United States without inquiring whether or not the fugitive was a British subject; and later, in 1877, a commission appointed by the British Government on extradition reported as follows: "On the whole the commission unanimously were of opinion that it is inexpedient that the state should make any distinction in this respect between its own subjects and foreigners; and stipulations to the contrary should be omitted from all treaties.". (Cf. Wharton, Conflict of Laws, § 841, note.) Similar observations apply to the treaty of extradition concluded between France and the United States on November 9, 1843, whose terms are almost identical with those of the treaty with Italy. So far as I am aware the French Government has never refused to extradite fugitives from justice on the ground that they were French citizens or subjects. And it is my strong impression that up to this time the Government of His Majesty the King of Italy has never taken the ground which is now taken in the case of Paladini. Moreover, I think that your excellency will find, upon proper inquiry, that the Italian Government has repeatedly demanded the extradition, at the hands of my Government, of American citizens charged with crime committed in Italy. But the case is still stronger. I venture to say that since the middle of the present century no state has asserted the right to refuse the extradition of its own subjects charged with the commission of crime abroad unless the treaty under which the extradition was demanded contained a clause justifying such refusal. Accordingly in all treaties between the United States and European states which deemed it proper to reserve the right to try their own subjects on charges of crime committed abroad there is a distinct article making the reservation. Thus, in the treaty between Austria and the United States, concluded July 3, 1856 (twelve years before the conclusion of the treaty with Italy), the second article provides: "Neither of the contracting parties shall be bound to deliver up its own citizens or subjects under the stipulations of this convention." Precisely the same express reservation is made in Article IV of the treaty with Belgium (March 19, 1874), in Article IV of the treaty with Sweden and Norway (March 21, 1860), and in Article III of the old treaty with Prussia (June 16, 1852), and in Article VI of the treaty with Mexico (December 11, 1861). But no such reservation is contained in the treaty with Italy; and I should very much regret if the case of Salva tore Paladini (who by this time has probably made his escape pede claudo both from the jurisdiction of Italy and that of the United States) should establish a precedent which would constrain the Government of the United States to revise all its traditional rules for the interpretation of international treaties. I avail, etc., J. B. STALLO. [Inclosure 9 in No. 223.-Translation.] Mr. Crispi to Mr. Stallo. MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Rome, July 27, 1888. MR. MINISTER: As soon as your esteemed note of the 14th of this month, relative to the arrest and extradition of Salvatore Paladini, was received, I hastened to ask the ministry of grace and justice to inform me clearly upon the three observations made by you. As to the first, viz, if it be comformable to the rules and customs practiced in Italy in similar cases to return in all or part the documents communicated in support of a request for extradition, that ministry has remarked that, conformably to what is practiced with all other Governments, it believed it well to retain those acts necessary in case the arrest should be made. However, you requesting them, I have the honor to return them herewith. As to the second observation, to the effect that the Government of the King had not esteemed it useful to avail itself of the aid of Mr. Cono Casale for the discovery and identification of the person sought for, the ministry of the interior, which, according to the existing rules upon the extradition of criminals, relating to the search and capture of Paladini, communicates to me that the said individual not having been found, it could not have recourse to the work of Mr. Casale to identify and recognize him. Finally, as to the third remark, viz, as to whether one's own citizens be or not exempt from the liability to being surrendered according to the convention cited, the ministry of grace and justice remarks that in the present state of things it can not be further treated (non si possa piú trattara), for this reason: According to the rules which govern extradition among us, it is necessary to hear case by case (1) The opinion of the crimes section of the court of appeals in whose district takes place the arrest of the malefactor asked for. (Articles 853 and 854 of the code of penal procedure.) (2) That of the council of state (article 8, No. 2, of the law of March 20, 1865; of No. 2248, Annex D) on the demand of extradition; that is, whether or not it is conformable to the compacts of the convention. Now, Paladini not being under arrest, a decision simply theoretical can not be invoked. If, then, you desire that the first article of the convention cited for future extraditable crimes be interpreted in accord between the two Governments, my colleague informs me that in case of being formally asked he will not fail to set forth the views of the Royal Government. For the rest, if the ministry pursues the matter, it is simply by way of argument, in response to the argument contained in your note. Considering that the active researches made in order to trace up Salvatore Paladini have remained fruitless, it seems proper to conclude that that individual is not at present in Italy. Be pleased, etc., F. CRISPI. [Inclosure 10 in No. 223.] Mr. Stallo to Mr. Crispi. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, YOUR EXCELLENCY: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your excellency's communication of the 27th instant (which has reached me this moment), in which your excellency announces the return of the papers in the case relating to the extradition of Salvatore Paladini. But by some inadvertence the papers are not actually returned to me, and I take the liberty therefore to repeat my request that they be sent to me. As to the further contents of your excellency's note, I must content myself for the present with saying that I shall at once communicate them to my Government and report to your excellency its reply as soon as it is received. I seize, etc., J. B. STALLO. [Inclosure 11 in No. 223.-Translation) Mr. Damiani to Mr. Stallo. MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, MR. MINISTER: The documents concerning Salvatore Paladini, which should have been inclosed in the note of July 27 last, were, by an inadvertence, forgotten. But while I was about to send them to you, I have been obliged to return them to the ministry of grace and justice, inasmuch as, by a telegram dated yesterday informing me that Paladini has been arrested, they have been again requested of me. Be pleased, etc., No. 111.J Mr. Bayard to Mr. Stallo. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: Your dispatch No. 223, of the 4th instant, transmitting your correspondence with the Italian foreign office, in relation to the demand for the extradition of Salvatore Paladini, on the charge of passing counterfeit money of the United States, has been received without signature. Should the question touching the non-surrender of an Italian subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and any claim of Italy to prosecute such subject on account of a crime committed against the United States and within their jurisdiction, arise by reason of a decision of the Italian magistrate before whom the proceedings in extradition are to be conducted upon the reported arrest of Paladini, their importance would then demand immediate consideration in the light of the facts disclosed. With reference to your statement that Cono Casale, the agent empowered by the President to bring Paladini back to the jurisdiction of the United States, in the event of his surrender, "is or claims to be without means," I have to inform you that the consul of the United States at Messina was instructed by cable, on the 14th instant, in reply to a telegraphic inquiry, that he should draw upon the Secretary of State for $200 on account of his necessary expenses in the premises. I am, etc., T. F. BAYARD. No. 230.] No. 717. Mr. Stallo to Mr. Bayard. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Rome, August 21, 1888. (Received September 5.) SIR: A telegraphic dispatch from Mr. Jones, our consul at Messina, which I have just received, informs me that the procurator-general of the court of appeals, in Messina, has moved the court to discharge Salvatore Paladini, and not to permit him to be extradited, on the ground that he is an Italian subject. I have requested Mr. Dougherty to communicate to the Department whatever official notice of this result may be given to the legation after my departure. In this connection I take the liberty of requesting the Department to send me the latest edition of the "Treaties and Conventions concluded between the United States of America and other powers." The copy I find in the legation library is very imperfect and consists, in part, of loose sheets. SIR: I have received Mr. Stallo's No. 230, of the 21st ultimo, reporting that the procurator-general of the court of appeals, in Messina, has moved that tribunal to discharge Salvatore Paladini, whose extradition has been requested by this Government under the treaties between the United States and Italy, on the ground that, being an Italian subject, he can not be extradited. The only guide the Department possesses in the matter is the language of the treaties, which contain no such limitation as that suggested. In reply to the legation's request for a late edition of the treaties between the United States and foreign powers, I have to say that it is hoped a new edition, now in press, will soon be issued, when the request will be complied with. SIR: I inclose herewith a copy of a dispatch dated the 29th ultimo from our consulate-general at Rome, informing the Department that by a ministerial decree of the 16th ultimo, the introduction of swine products of Austro-Hungary into Italy will hereafter be allowed in exception to the general prohibitory decree of the 6th of May, 1879, on the ground that Austrian pork had been ascertained to be free from infection. You will find in your archives an instruction to Mr. Marsh, dated June 10, 1881, directing him to transmit a copy of the official report of this Department on the subject of American pork to the Italian Government, urging at the same time on it the propriety of abolishing, or, at any rate, of modifying the prohibitive decree against American pork of the 20th of February, 1879. It does not appear from subsequent correspondence how far these instructions were executed or what effect, if any, followed. I therefore now send you another copy of the document referred to, with the request that you will promptly investigate the state of the case as reported by the consul-general, and, in connection therewith, again call the attention of the Italian Government to the arguments of this Government in support of the healthiness of American pork, and also to the fact that under our commercial treaties with Italy the United States is entitled to the same treatment as the most favored nations as regards the importation of her products. This Government believes that the arguments which were advanced in 1881 hold equally good now, and that American pork, if a fair examination be made of it, will more than hold its own in comparison with that of Austria or other foreign nations, the existence of trichinosis in Europe being 'due, it is believed, in all cases which have been officially investigated, to the prevalent custom of eating pork in a perfectly uncooked state. I am, etc., Inclosure 1 in No. 116.] T. F. BAYARD. No. 249.] Mr. Wood to Mr. Rives. CONSULATE-GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Rome, August 29, 1888. (Received September 17.) SIR: As is known to the Department of State, pork and pork preparations in any form whatsoever, and without distinction of country of origin, have been prohibited articles of import into Italy for more than nine years past. In truth, United States pork and pork preparations were interdicted on February 20, 1879; and on May 6 of the same year the interdiction was extended to all countries. So that since the latter date there have been no further imports of these articles into this country. I now have the honor to inform you that on the 16th instant the Italian minister of the interior issued a decree ordering that on and after that date pork and pork preparations coming from Austria-Hungary should be allowed to enter the Kingdom. Two copies of this decree, with translation, are inclosed herein. The ministerial decree states that the interdiction on pork and pork preparations from Austria-Hungary has been raised, as it has been found that the swine of that Empire are free from trichina. Could the Italian Government be satisfied that there is no danger from trichina in American pork, it is possible that this country, which prior to 1879 was a considerable market for our product, would again be opened to our trade. In communicating the above information, I believe it may be interesting for our Government to know that in Italy a large proportion of the smoked hams and shoulders and sausages are eaten uncooked. By the well-to-do classes they are eaten as relishes; for the poor they constitute real articles of food; but in both cases they are chiefly consumed raw. I am, etc., CHARLES M. WOOD, [Inclosure 2 in No. 116.-Translation.] 1888.-Marine Health Order No. 10. The minister of the interior by virtue of the law of March 20, 1865, Supplement C, on public health, having ascertained that throughout the Empire of Austria-Hungary swine (il bestiame porcino) are perfectly free from trichina; decrees: That, from now on, it shall be permitted to introduce into the Kingdom the flesh of swine salted, smoked, or otherwise prepared (le carni suine salati affumicati od altri menti preparate) coming from the aforesaid Empire of Austria-Hungary. The prefects, captains of ports and port officers, and the customs authorities of the Kingdom are charged with the execution of this order. ROME, August 16, 1888. CRISPI, |