No. 279.
Mr. Wurts
to Mr. Evarts.
Rome, August 7, 1877. (Received August 27.)
Sir: I hasten to reply, as far as able, to your instruction No. 586, dated July 17, 1877, on the subject of the alleged impressment of a certain Largo Messina, claiming to be an American citizen, into the military service of Italy, and beg to inform you that no complaint on behalf of Largo Messina has ever been made to this legation, and that the first information on the subject is derived from the article of the New York Herald annexed to your instruction No. 586. As this article of the Herald does not state where or when the occurrence took place, the legation does not know whether it is of recent or of remote date; and there is nothing in the article to guide us in making inquiries, the name itself, Largo Messina, being an improbable one.
In the hope, however, of eliciting some information on the subject, I have had an interview with Count Tornielli, secretary-general of the minister of foreign affairs, and, to my surprise, found him fully cognizant of the principal facts in the case, although unable-to tell me the precise date of the occurrence. The name of the person in question is Largomarsino, not Largo Messina, as stated in the article in the Herald.
It appears that some time ago Count Litta, the Italian chargé d’affaires at Washington, either at the instance of some friend of Largomarsino or on account of his attention being called to an article on the subject in a newspaper, inquired of the ministry of foreign affairs for particulars in the case, and the following facts were ascertained:
Largomarsino left Italy with his father at the age of two; he, when grown up—date not known—returned to Italy, to his native village, near Genoa, on a visit, it is said; then he was informed that, his name being on the rolls of conscription and he not having presented himself at the proper time, he would have to be treated as a deserter; he was consequently tried on that change by a military tribunal at Rome, but acquitted; he was, however, informed that he would be obliged to serve his time in the army; and he is now with a regiment of infantry in Northern Italy.
These are all the facts of the case that Count Tornielli could tell me. He added that Count Litta, at Washington, had all the information on the subject.
The secretary-general expressed himself with much firmness as to the allegiance of Italian born subjects to their native land, saying that it was a point which the Government of Italy would not abandon; that, to make a treaty with the stipulation waiving claim to the allegiance, with its implied obligations of Italian born subjects, it would be first necessary to change the Italian civil code. Article III of the convention of 1871 between the two countries is not considered to be applicable to the point of primary allegiance of citizens of the two contracting powers or to have the signification we give to it.
In my interview with the secretary-general I limited myself to obtaining the foregoing information and to expressing regret at an occurrence which may revive a delicate subject of controversy heretofore quietly settled between the two governments without coming to a direct issue; nor have I addressed any communication to the ministry of foreign affairs on this subject, as your instruction No. 586 merely directs the legation to report to the Department what information could be obtained.
[Page 460]While waiting for further instructions, it is well here to acquaint the Department with the experience of this legation with the Government of Italy in similar eases. For this I beg to refer you to the dispatches of Mr. Marsh, on file at the Department of State, Nos. 332, 343, 350, 354, 365, 391, in the affair of Sbarbaro; Nos. 421, 422, 427, in that of Biaggiotti; and No. 557 in that of Ceriano.
These dispatches contain full details of the negotiations in those cases, and state the views of the Italian Government on the subject of the allegiance owed by its citizens to their native country, a point from which they have never shown any inclination to recede, and they decline to recognize, in the act of any foreign state, the power to release their subjects from the obligations implied by their allegiance to the country of their birth.
The question was raised in treating of the aforementioned cases, and the Italian Government has always insisted on that doctrine; but the question has never before come to a direct issue, because the conscript has been rejected or physically unfit for service, or has contrived to escape out of the Italian jurisdiction, or has withdrawn his complaint from fear of being punished for fraudulently obtaining a certificate of naturalization, and, with the exception of Largomarsino, we have no reason to believe that any American citizen is now held to service in the Italian army against his will.
I have, &c.,