The Washburn leader. [volume] (Washburn, McLean County, N.D.) 1890-1986, 1891-04-18
The Controversy Between the United
States and Italy Made
Public.
The Italian Government Only Asks
for Justice for Her C0un-
trymen.
Blaine Says He did not Guarantee
Indemnity to the Families of
the Murdered Italians.
Blaine VS.. Rudini.

pondence between Secretary Blaine and
the italian government since the secreta-
RVS note to Marquis Imperial, acknowl-
edging the notice of Baron Fava's de-
parture, is given out tonight. In COM
munication of April I'd the italian gov
eminent says: "The government of the
king of Italy has asked nothing beyond
the prompt institution of judicial pro-
ceedings through the regular channels.
It would have been absurd to claim pun
ishment of the guilty parties without a
warrant of regular judgment. The Ital-
ian government now repeats the same
demand. Not until the federal govern
ment shall have explicitly declared that
the aforesaid proceedings shall be
promptly begun can the diplomatic Incl
dent be considered as closed. Meanwhile
his majesty's government takes note of
the declaration whereby the federal gov
eminent recognizes that indemnity is
due to the families of the victims is a
virtue of the treaty in force between the
two countries"
B1A1NE's REPLY.
Under date of April 18th, Blaine ex-
presses his satisfaction with the qualif-
cation of Rudini's demand, and on the in
demnlty says: eff Marquis Rudini will
carefully examine my note of April LIST,
he will discover that I did not recognize
that an indemnity is due to the families
of the victims by virtue of the treaty in
force between the two countries" What
I did say was in answer to Baron Fava's
assertion that the United States govern
ment refused to take this demand for an
indemnity into consideration. Marquis
Rudini may be assured that the United
States would recompense every italian
subject who might "be wronged by the
violation of a treaty" to which the faith
of the United states is pledged. But
this assurance leaves unsettled the
important question whether the treaty
has been violated. Upon this point, the
president, with sufficient facts placed
before him, has taken full time for de-
cision. He now directs that certain
considerations in the general subject be
submitted to the judgment of the
Italian government" The secretary
then cites the action il previous similar
cases and continues: "As promptly as pos
sible after the lamentable occurrence at
New Orleans, the president directed the
attorney general to cause through his
department a full inquiry to be made
into all facts connected Herewith and
solicitedh his opinion whether any criminal
proceedings would lie under the federal
laws in the federal courts against the
persons charged with the killing of the
Italian subjects. He has not yet re-
ceived the official report. If it be found
that q prosecution a be obtained under
the statutes of the United States, q case
will be presented to the next grand jury,
according to the usual methods of the
criminal administration. But if it shall
be found, as seems probable, that crimi-
nal proceeding can only be taken in the
courts of Louisiana, the president
can in this direction do no
more than to urge upon the
state officers the duty Of promptly
bringing the offenders to trial. This was
done in his telegram to the governor of
Louisiana as early as the 18th of March.
If it shall result that the case a be
prosecuted only in the state courts of
Louisiana, and the usual judicial %investi-
cation and procedure under the criminal
law is not resorted to, it will then be the
duty of the United States to consider
whether some other form of redress may
be asked. It is understood that the state
grand jury is now Investigating the at
fair, and, while it is possible the jury
may fail to present indictments, the
United States cannot assume that such
will be the case. The United States did
not by treaty with Italy become an in
surer of the lives or property OF Italian
subjects resident within our territory. No
government is able, however high its civ
ilization, however vigilant its police gu.
pervision, however severe its criminal
code and however prompt and intiexlble
it's criminal administration, to secure it's
own citizens against violence promoted
by individual malice or by sudden popu-
lar tumult. Foreign residents must be
content in such cases to share the same
redress that is offered by law to citizens
and has no justification Of complaint or
right to ask the interpretation OF
his country, if the courts
are equally open to him
for the redress Of his injuries. The
treaty in the first, second, third and nota-
bly, in the t~wenty-third articles clearly
limits the rights guaranteed to citizens OF
the contracting powers in the territory OF
each to equal treatment and to fee &C.
cess to the courts of justice. Foreign
residents are not made q favored class.
It Is. not believed that Italy would desire
q more stringent construction Of her duty
under the treaty. Where theinjury inaict-
ed upon q foreign resident is not an act OF
the government or of its ~oficres, but OF
an individual or of a mob, It is not be-
lieved that q claim for indemnity can
Justly be made, unless it shall be made to-
appear that the public authorities
charged with the peace of the community
have connived at the unlawful aim, or
having timely notice of the threatened
danger, have been guilty of such gross
negligence in taking the necessary pre-
cautions as to amount to connivance.
If, therefore, it should appear that
among those killed by the mob at New
Orleans there were some
italian subjects who were resident or
domiciled in that city. agreeably to
treaty with Italy, and not in the viola
ton Of our immigration laws and who