The Delta independent., 1891-04-23
The ITALIAN CONTROVERSY.
Correspondence Between Secretary
Blaine and the Italian
Government.

Government.
Upon the withdrawal from Wash
ington of Baron Fava, Mr.. Blaine sent q
note to the officer remaining as Italy's
representative in which he set the Italian
government right on one or two points In
which he had been misunderstood. In
reply to this Rudini, the Italian prime
minister, sent the following on April End !:
1.-THE government of the King Of Italy
institution. Of judicial proceedings through
the regular channels. It would have bsen
absurd to demand the punishment Of the
guilty parties without the warrant OF
regular judgment The Italian govern
ment repeats the same demand. Not until
the federal government shall have ex-
plicitly declared that the aforesaid pro-
ceedings shall be promptly begun can tho
diplomatic incident be considered as
closed. Meanwhile his matesty's govern
ment takes note of the declaration where
by the federal government recognizes that
an indemnity is due to the families Of the
victims in virtue Of the treaty in force
between the two countries."
In replying 10 this, Secretary Blaine
called attention to the fact that AZ first
Italy had made more urgent demands for
immediate punishment Of the mob with
out saying anything about the process OF
law.
Regarding the latter part Of Rudini's
note, Mr.. Blaine said:
''If the Marquis Rudini will carefully
examine my note OF April !, he will dis
cover that did not recognize that an in
demnity II due to the families Of the
victims by virtue Of the treaty in force be-
tween the two countries.' What did say
was in answer to Baron Favs's assertion
that the United States government
refused to take this demand for indemnity
into consideration. quote my reply:
1.-THE United States, 80 far from refus-
ing, has distinctly recognized the principle
Of indemnity to those Italian subjects tcho
may hare been trronged by violation OF
tho rights secured TO them under the
treaty with the United States concluded
February 70, ISL
The Marquis Di Rudini may be assured
tha, the United States will rccompensc
every buUgcCt VINO may US WEouEtu
by violation Of = treaty to which the
faith Of the United Sta.cs is pledged. But
this assurance leaves unsettled the i'm
portant question whether tho treaty has
been violated
MIR. Blaine goes on to rccite at some
length n similar case which occurred forty
years ago. and the position taken at tha,
time BY Daniel Webster. In conclusion
he says
"If 1t should appear that among those
killed by the mob at New Orleans there
were some Italian subjects who were
domiciled in that city agreeable with
our treaty with Italy and not in violation
Of laws and who were abiding in the peace
of the United States and obeying the laws
thereof and OF the state of Louisiana, and
that the public officers charged with the
duty Of protecting life and property In that
city connived nj the work of the mob or
under proper notice or information of the
threatened danger, failed to take any
| stcps for the preservation Of tho public
peace aud afterwards to bring the guilty
TO trial, the president would, under such
circumstances, feel that 4 case was cstab-
lished that should be submitted TO the
consideration OF Congress- with view to
tho relief OF the families Of the Italian
subjects who had lost their lives by law
less violence.