Newspaper Page Text
WASHINGTON: SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1853.
N? fifil THE WliEkLY NATIONAL lNTELLItiEKEK. The sabscription price of thin paper for a year is Tnumt Dollars, payable in advance. For the loug Sessions of Congress, (averaging eight months,) the price will be Two 1>oll\us; for the short Sessions One Dollar per copy. A redaction of 20 per cent, (one-fifth of the full charge) will be made to any one who shall order and pay for, at one time, five copies of the Weekly paper; and a like re daction of 25 per cent, (or one-fourth of the full charge) to any one who will order and pay for, at one time, ten or more copies. No account* being kept for this paper, it will not be for warded to any one unless paid for in advance, nor sent any laager than the time for which it is so paid. NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER^ MR. MARCY'S LETTER ON THE KOSZTA CASE. In attempting to review the letter of Mr. Secre tary Marcy, and to give any thing like a fair criti ciem of it, the writer is well aware that he is under taking a thankless task, for so widely has it been read, and so general has bet>n the admiration which it hao exoitotl, tluit ilu? Wt. wortI ccaisure or dis praise is apt to be decried as an envious attempt to diminish the well-earned fame of an able and pa triotic man; but yet, after much reflection upon the subject, the writer has come to the conclusion that the document in question is filled with much sophistical and fallacious reasoning, which the sober second thought of the people is sure to detect, how ever well sounding and logical it may appear upon a first perusal. So ingeniously, however, has it been worded, and bo neatly have disjointed facts, political axioms, and legal definitions, undoubtedly true in them selves, been joined together so as to make a falsity, that it is almost impossible, without taking it up word by word and letter by letter, to expose the tissue of misconceptions of which it is composed. Mr. Makcy oominenccs his letter with a very able, clear, nasterly statement of the case, which can hardly be sur passed for brevity, conepicuity, and comprehensiveness, lie then proceeds to show, if the writer has understood his arguments? 1st. Negatively, that Austria had no right to seize upon Koszta. ... 2d. Positively, that America had the right to protect him by force of arms. In attempting to make out the first portion of his argu ment he proceeds to show, in the first place, that Koszta was upon neutral territory, over which neither Austria nor the United States could exercise jurisdiction; that consequently the municipal regulations of neither coun try could be referred to in the avguinent, but that the laws of nations was the only authority to be consulted, which generally disregarded the restrictions ot munici pal codes. Now, with all respect to Mr. Marcy's opinion, " Is t e law of nations the proper authority to bo referred to.' Is not the municipal law of Turkey the one proper to settle the controversy ? Where a wrong arises existing in a violation of neutral territory, is not the Government of that territory the one upon whom it peculiarly de volves to settle the difficulty between the adverse Powers and mete out impartial justice to all ? By the law of na tions, where tl?? vessel or property of a belligerent is cap tured within the jurisdiction of a noutrnl, It belongs ex clusively to the neutral Government to see justice done between the parties. Speaking upoii this subject Chan cellor Kent says : ?? The adverse belligerent bar. no right to C0?Pjslin when the prize is duly libelled before a competent court. Jf any complaint it to be made on the part of the captured, i itat be byhis Government to the neutral Government for a fraudulent, or unworthy, or unntteuary tubmutton to a no tation of id territory." The writer knows of no decision precisoly applicable to the case of two nations at peace with one another where an altercation takes place upon neutral territory, ou from the whole course of decisions, and the rules of in ternational law applicable to the rights, duties, and re sponsibilities of neutral Governments, his opinion is ttia Turkey, and Turkey alone, was the authority to be ap pealed to for the adjudication and settlement ot the dis pute between the parties. While within the Turkish borders both the American and Austrian owed a tempo rary allegiance to their laws, and to engage in a hostile conflict there was to violate the hospitality of a Power friendly to their respective Governments. As between Austria and America, then, the Turkish authorities were the ones having jurisdiction over the matter in dl9Pute_ But Mr. Marcy, to strengthen this allegation that t ic law of nations disregards the restrictions of municipal codes, takes as an illustration the case of extrndit.on, and goes on to show that it is not a duty to surrender po litical offenders, but, on the contrary, 44 compliance with such a demand would be considered a dishonorable su - Mrviency to a foreign Power," and takes the very case of Turkey in 1849-'50, when, he says, she very properly re fused to give up the Hungarian refugees, and quotes the opinions of Sir Stratford Canning, of the French Minis ter then resident at Constantinople, and of Lord Palmer ston, to show that the Turkish Government acted in a noble and justifiable manner. Upon this point the writer perfectly agrees with them and with Mr. Marcy. In the then situation of affairs it would Lave been disgraceful and dishonorable for the 8ultan to deliver up the poor trembling fugitives from Austrian vengeance. They had Veen fighting in what to them was a noble and patriotic oause, in the struggle for their liberties ; they had sacri ficed all which coald make life dear to them, home, pro perty, friends, and kindred; they had lingered, with the vain hope of despair, until defeat and famine had re duced tbeir numbers to a mere scattered handful, white the countless armies of two of the most powerful nations in the world stood ready to blot them from the rolls of ?xlstcnce. It was in these circumstauoes, when their he roic struggles had kindled the admiration and their re peated reverses had touched tho sympathies of the world, that they fled to the 8ultan for protection, and he re sponded to the call. To have done otherwise would have been a confession of fear, an outrage upon the laws o humanity, a disregard to the sympathies of man in whioh would have roused tho indignation and contempt of every nation upon the surface of the globe; but when Mr. Marcy goes on to say, in referenco to this ?? It is an incident of great significance, and bearing au thoritatively upon some of the most important question* now raised, that the case of Koszta (for he was one of the Hungarian refugees then demanded) was folly discussed in 1840, not only by the parties, bat throughout Europe, and decided ajrninst the right of Austria to require his extradition, either under the law of nations or by exist ing treaty stipulations?" he utters a fallacy and makes a misapplication which cannot be overlooked. Kosita's case is not the case of one of the Hungarian refugees then demanded. They were men fleeing from persecution and destruction to the nearest place of rofuge within their reach ; lie was a man returning from a place of security and freedom to the neighborhood of former dangers. Koszta the Hungarian refugee and Koszta the Turkish exile were different per sons. The poor soldier of liberty, fleeing from danger and death at home, and casting himself upon the huma nity of th? Sultan for protection, called for the utmost exertions of national power in his defence ; bnt the thank less creature who, ungrateful for former favors, heedless i of the inconvenieuoes to which he had already exposed I his former saviour, returns to his lands, after a formal I banishment, and by his prcsenco exposes him to fresh 1 danger and annoyance, calls only for contempt and pun ishment. The laws which govern the ono case cannot be j cited lor the government of the other. The one is an act ' performed in compliance with the dictates of humanity , I the other is a transgression of municipal law which calls | rather for punishment than fuvor. But, even admitting that the case of ICoszta now and the ?ase of the Hungarian refugee then were Identical, Mr. Marcy has no grounds for asserting that this case was 44 decided against the right of Austria to require his extradition, either under the law of nations or by exist ing treaty stipulations." It was indoed dccided that by the treaty stipulations between the two nations Austiia could only call for their perpetual banishment from iur kcy, but the rest of the sentence is one of those seeming ly true, actually falBO assertions, or rather deductions, which form a great part of Mr. Marcy's argument. Had he said, 4< it was dooided in flaw of the right of Turkey to refuse his extradition under *he law of nations," the assertion would have been perfectly eorreot; but it waB never decided against the right of Austria to require his extradition. Every nation has * right to demand that priuiinula against its laws be delivered up, though it rests in the discretion of the nation of whom the demand is made whether they shall comply with it or not. It has been held by many of the most able writers upon public law that it is the duty of one nation to deliver up to another with whom it is at peace criminals against her laws who have taken refuge within its territories ; but, though the practice of nations has over-ruled their opin ion, still there is nothing to show that the nation of which the offender is a Bubject loses its right to require his extradition, or that a refusal so to deliver hiriS is not a sufficient cause of war. If you view it by the princi ples of the old common law, the nation has a property in the man, and as a necessary consequence has the right to demand and force a delivery of its property. If, on the other hand, you regard civil government, as do the civil ians, as a contract between the people as one community and each individual of the people sejarately, by which certain duties are to be performed and certain penalties to be awarded for their non-performance, the one party has an undoubted right to demand the surrender of the one who has violated the contract, that he may undergo the penalties which he has incurred, and to use force when any other Powers interfere to prevent the fulfilment of the articles, of the agreement. View the subject in either light, as property or as a contracting party, the result is still the same; and thus, though Turkey, by prescription and in the exercise of her independent sov ereignty, may have the right to resist the demand of Aus tria for the delivery of a fugitive, still the latter Govern ment has the right to make that demand, and in case of refusal to force a delivery. In Europe, where even the rumor of a conflict between two of its members distui-bs the commercial harmony and prosperity of the whole continent, and where success upon either side mi?;ht serve to destroy the balance of power among the nations, the principle of self-preservation obliges the other sov ereignties to interfere and quell the disturbance, and this interference is generally in favor of the weaker against the stronger Power. The fact that force, therefore, has seldom been resorted to to compel the extradition of fu gitives, is no proof that the country to which they belong has lost the right to require it. As the case now stands | the result seems to'be this: Austria, by the principles of international law, has the right to the possession and custody of criminal subject* ; Turkey has, by prescription I and in the exercise of her independent sovereignty, unless i restrained by express treaty stipulations, the right to re fuse their surrender. The right of appealing to the dernier rauon des roit lies merged in a regard to the peace and prosperity of Europe. Austria has then the right to the possession of her rebellious citizens, subject to Tur key's right of "overeignty over them wbile within her ju risdiction. But, after showing that there were no treaty stipula tions by which Turkey authorized Austria to seize upon her Hungarian refugees, Mr. Marcy goes on to another view of the question. He says, if Austria has such au thority, it confessedly extends only to Austrian subjects, and then attempts to show that Koszta is not an Austrian subject. He gives us two lines of argument upon this subject, which are certainly not only pecttliar^but amus ing. First, he says: 44 By the consent and procurement of th?s Emperor of Austria, Koszta has been sent into perpetual banishment. The Emperor was a party to the expulsion of the Huu- | gariau refugees from Turkey. The sovereign by such an act deprives his subjects to whom it is applied of all their | rights under his Government. He places them where lie cannot, if he would, afford them protection. By such an act he releases the subjects thus banished from the bond of allegiance. Any other result would make the po litical connexion between the subject and the sovereign a state of unmitigated vassalage, in which all the duties and no rights would be on one side, and all the rights and no duties would be on the other. Koszta must bo regarded as having been banished by Austria; for he was one ol the Hungarian refugees whom she procured to be expel led from Turkey in 1861. They were released from con finement at Kutahia on condition of submitting to perpet ual banishment, and she hod two persons present at their departure 4 who claimed and obtained there an active share in the arrangements.' Koszta could never there after be rightfully demanded as an Austrian subjoct."' Now, Mr. Marcy, how, in the names of all the gods at once, do you contrive to make that out 1 How was the expulsion of the Hungarian refugees from Turkey, a ban ishment of them from Austria. The Emperor never con sented or procured to have them banished from their na tive land ; he wanted them back ; he begged Turkey, he entreated Turkey, almost wont to war with Ttfrkey be cause she would not let him have them back; and he on ly insisted, when he found Turkey so hard-hearted as not to grant his request, that sho should not bo allowed to keep them herself. No, no! the Hungarian refugees were never banished from their mother country, and were they to return to-day would be admitted to the privileges and subject to the penalliet of Austrian lawt. There has been no dissolution by the Emperor of their native alle giance ; he has been only too strenuous in maintaining it, and the writer thinks that this is the first instance where it was ever sought to be established that banishment from Turkey means banishment from Austria. However, Mr. Marcy's resources do not fail here. He goes on to sny : 44 The proposition that Koszta at Smyrna was not an 4 Austrian subject' can be sustained on another ground. By a decree of the Emperor of Austria of the 21th of March, 1882, Austrian subjects leaving the dominions of the Emperor without permission of the magistrate and a release of Austrian citizenship, and with an intention ne ver to return, become ' unlawful emigrant*,' and lose all their civil and political rights at home.?(Ency. Amer. Tit. Emigration, 2 Kent's Com., 50, 51.) ?< Koszta had left Austria without permission, and with the obvious and avowed intention never to return: he was, therefore, within the strict meaning of the imperial de cree, 4an unlawful emigrant.' lie had incurred and paid the penalty of that offence by the loss of all his civil and political rights. It he had property, it had escheat ed and he was reduced to a state worse than absolute alienage; for aliens have, by right, the benefit of the civil laws for protection in whatever country they may be. Stripped by this imperial decree of civil and politi cal rights. Koszta had, in Austria, no redress for per sonal wrong, and abroad he had no claim to protection from the Government that would still hold hiiu as a oub ject. He was, in regard to Austria, an outlaw. What right can a sovereign have to the allegiance of a person reduced by him to such a miserable condition ? It seems to have been the very object of the Austrian decree to dissolve the previous political connexion between the 4 un wi'!Em"?"1' ?"d 11,8 ,n it What the above has to do with the present discussion it would be hard to tell. After throwing the restrictions of municipal law altogether out of the question, after telling us that the law of nations generally disregarded them, and that a controversy of this kind was to be gov erned entirely by the law of nations, he makes an Aus trian decree the object of an argument and a philippic. business has any National Government with the private legislation of another Government? Austria has her own municipal regulations for the preservation of her internal peace and prosperity, with which it behooves not other nations to interfere. In the exercise of her pre rogative as a sovereign she has seen fit to restrain the emigration of her subjects, and has prescribed certain onus to be observed before such emigration can take place, lo the wilful infraction of this law she has affix ed a certain penalty, severe it may be in our eye*, but still one which she has a perfect right to inflict. We can not tell the reasons which have influenced her in arriving at such a conclusion, nor have we auy right to sit in judw. tueui luoreon. It is aufiicient to know that in her t yes unlawful emigration is a great crime, and is punished as such. Y\ho shall ?ay that, therefore, the criminal is no onger her subject; that in committing a crimc against us country's laws he is ip^o facto dissolving the tie which united him to her, breaking the bond of his allegiance, and incapacitating her from the right to inflict the pun ishment? According to Mr. Marcy's doctrine, the mur I dorer> tlje tLief, the forger who flics beyond her borders to escape the just punishment of Austrian laws, because lie thereby becomes an uulawful emigrant, ceases imme diately to be an Austrian subject, and his Government loses the right to demand and to punish him. It is ward ing ofl the penalties of crime by the actual commission of the crime. It makes the harborer of the criminal the de fender of the innocent, for it tells him that the Govern ment against which he has offended is not the legal tribu nal to try him; that it has no jurisdiction over the per son of the offender; and, worst of all, that the commis sion of the very offence which renders him liable to an indictment before it, has emancipated him from under its control! Mr. Marcy then proceeds to discuss Koszta's opinion of his own citizenship, first casting a doubt over the charge that he ever made any allegation of citizenship, and then arguing that if he did no importance was to be attached to it. Ilis position, in this respect, might bo granted in nn abstract controversy between two nations upon the subject of Koszta's citizenship, but, in the condition of a airs at Smyrna, when the alleged declaration of citizen f on bis P,irt made, his own allegations should have been of the first importance in regulating the con duct of the American officials; and, in defending their conduct, Mr. Marcy should look at the circumstances which had transpired at the time of their alleged misbe havior rather than at subsequent events which may have gi ven a favorable turn to the opinions which would other wise have been entertained of them. The American Con sul and Oapt. Ingraham were at the time undoubtedly violating the hospitality of neutral territory by threaten ing to commit belligerent acts while within that territory ? tliey were also threatening to engago in conflict with the -overnment vessel of a country at peace with the United Mates. For the commission of these acts they had no au hority from the home Government, nor did they come within the boundaries of their legal duties. They had ta ken this decided step, however; they had stretch*! their authority thus far in order U> protect in a case of einer -?< ucy a, A mtnran ritken . but, on being a*k?<l *r proof " U8 , they can find none except a ttc -Uiraiian oj iu tniention to become a citizen. How oould they say from that slight proof that he was entitled to American protection? They had not at that time the advantage of Mr. Marcy's able letter to show that if he was not a citi zen he was just as good as one; so they agree upon ask ing Mr. Koszta whether he actually is an American or not ? But, upon calling upon him to declare whether he is an Ame rican, (a question, by the way, which is leading, and there fore should not have been put,) he replies, "So! I am a unganan, and will lire and die a Hungarian I" Here is a declaration of intention which, in Mr. Marcy's mind, ought to be conclusive evidence of the want of American autho rity, inasmuch as it is on a similar ground that he bases his argument in favor of that authority. Surely, if such a declaration was made, it should have been conclusive upon American officials, who had already overstepped their authority by taking the law into their own hands instead of applying to the proper muuicipal authorities for redress. But Mr. Marcy undertakes an ingenious argument up on this pubject in defence of Koszta, more worthy of a lawyer than a statesman. He attempts to show that Koszta might make such a declaration and yet not confess himself an Austrian subject. He (Mr. Marcy) does not attempt to draw a distinction between a citizen of Hun gary and a subject of Austria. Oh, no! but he says that Koszta must have drawn the distinction in his own mind. So did Kossuth, so did hundreds of other Hungarians who have never taken the oath of allegiance, draw a dis tinction in their own minds between a Hungarian citizen and an Austrian subject. That distinction was the very vital principle of their so-called revolution. Without their establishing that distinction it would not have been a re volution, hut a rebellion against competent authority, which would completely deprive them of the hopes of achieving their independence so long as that distinction ceased to exist. But, however nicely the distinction might have been drawn in Hungarian minds, to the representative of the American Government, a Government which still re gards Hungary as within the dominions and its citizen, as subject to the control of the Austrian Power, the confes sion of being a Hungarian citizen should ever be the ac knowledgment of being an Austrian subject. Neither Mr Brown Capt Ingraham, nor Mr. MarcyAad any thing t0 do with Mr. Koszta s distinctions. With tfiem there is no difference between a Hungarian and an Austrian; and if they seek to establish a distinction it is at once a recoe n.t.on of Hungarian independence and a declaration of war againtt Austria. After having established the points already referred to broul^l 8ali8f,lCt1i0,,? Mr' announces that he i, brought, by a sound application of the principles of law and a careful consideration of the facts, to the conclusion that those who acted in behalf of Austria bad no right to seize and imprison Martin Koszta. Against this conclusion, though altogether, in the wri ter s opinion, unsupported by the facts and arguments ,ik* 10 enter o" Protest, because we ! 1 fr Mr- Marcy bimspIf h" I nl l. S?IStron^ t0 Pr0Te th? contrary. There can br would k I 1hvt thC authorities of Austria control , right l? SCil? UP0D Kok,? ' controlled by the presence of a foreign sovereignty. By! ** *** ? Y"bject' ftnJ ? object who has committed her WiU,in h" ?Wn or upon the oi nt ' r? s,l? would not infringe upon the sover , ""t ?"?'?PM-lent nation, .he would bare .? r , If MIM.*?* '"Priion lilm. llo bail So.l ?. h." ,h,or" botl, r?r.?.<l b, ,he officers H h. k I W0U|'1 "" ? criminal nn . b? ba,l ?lth ,he pooi?,?Mt [0 ,he : ..?l.T, theJr h,J the <? ??"? bi? "ben I ' , d0 80 *itbout Tiol.tin,, the jurisdiction of?nauon ?t with tbem ? Ib thiu If tbcjr ...M upon Ko?u w|,bMt ? , b b"" Now, what are the facts, aa Mr. Marcy Las given them to us. It was decided in 1849-'60 that, though under the treaty stipulations then existing Austria had not the right to demand the extradition of tlio Hungarian refu gees, she had the right to demand that they should not he allowed to reside permanently in Turkey. Turkey re cognised this as the right of Austria under those treaty stipulation?, and accordingly beniwhod them from her ter ritory. They were sent by her into a perpetual exile? forbidden ever to set foot again upon her shores. If, after auch nn admonition, any one of them returned to Turkey, he returned at his peril. Sending them away upon this understanding with Austria?that their exile was ordered aa her riyhl, under existing treaties?Turkey, in case of their return, became reduced to this alternative: either to acknowledge that she had broken the treaty in acccrJance with which the Hungarian refugees were exiled, or to say that they had come there against her wishes, contrary to her express commands, and consequently were not uu der her protection. If Turkey had violated the acknow ledged conditions of the treaty it would have been ccw bellt, and Austria would, by the law of nations, have had tho right to eufu*e| its provisions, even in violation of Turkey's right of sovereignty. If, on the other hand, thev were ia lurkey contrary to her ooininands, and not under her protection, Austria would not violaU Turkey's right of sovereignty in seizing them. This was the cate of Koszta. If 1 urkey aflorded him protection, she vio lated her compact with Austria; if she did not consider him under her protection, Austria violated none of her rights in seizing/liim. As between her and Turkey, then, I Austria had thepight to seize and imprison Martin Kosz ta. As betwec* her and the United States, had the the right ? By her Jiws Martin Koszta was a subject of Aus tria ; by the lais of the United States he was not a citi zen. By her hws lie was a criminal who had fled from his country ; ljjr the laws of the United States ho was an alien who had perely taken the oath of intentions. By her laws he ofed the Emperor an allegiancc which could only be disso^ed by mutual conscnt; by the laws of the United States he owed that country nothing except the duty of everyalien, obedience while within her territory. He had livedin the Austrian dominions and been subject to her laws q whole lifetime. lie had lived in the United States a yea*and three-quarters. The Austrian officers, in seizing hi|a, were, by their lav^s, arresting an Austrian subject who had committed treason again-t and unlaw fully emigrated from his country. The United States officers, in defending him, were defending one whom they knew to be not an American citizen ; who was not enti tled to papjrs which would secure him the protection and assistance of our consuls abroad ; whom they knew to I have been iml still to be a subject of Austria, ly the laws under which h<; was born and bred ; and this they were doing withcut the authority of Iaw3 upon which to base their condict; without instructions from their Govern ment; Without any pretext but their own individual sym pathy with the prisoner, \ielding to their own private feelings, thty dared to violate the hospitality of a neutral territory bj & threatened combat, to sow the seeds of war with a country at peace with their Government, and have, for such inexcusable conduct, found a backer in I the high sects of the nation, willing to rack his ingenui ty and torture his brain to furnish plausible excuscs for their folly. We cannot presume to penetrate the motive, but the plaudits of the multitude have rung loud and high over the prostitution, of intellect, and a voice seems to whisper in their midst, " Verily, I say unto you, they have their reward." We come now to the second position of Mr. Secretary Marey't WtM. >?l that we before stated, that " the \merican Government bnrt the right to protect Martin Kosr.ta. ' Anil this he attempts to show? 1st. By the laws of humanity and of nature. -d. On the ground of hfe American nationality; and 3d. On the score of Turkish usages. The writer proposes to consider the first nnd third of these propositions in immediate succession, reserving the second and most important one till the last. Mr. Marcy commences by supposing the state of the parties at that time to have been the same as if they were in a desert beyond the sovereignty of aDy individu al State. He arrives at this hypothesis by asserting that Austria had no authority, Turkey exercised none, and therefore their condition was the same as ifthev were beyond the boundaries of ony sovereignty. Then, hesavs, if this were the case, America was perfectly justified by the laws of nature aDd of humanity in interfering between Austria, the robber, and Koszta, her victim; that Koszta was suffering grievous wrong, au 1 in the then situation of affairs any one that could might relieve him, and would be perfectly justified in so doing. Now, we would appeal to any unbiased man if that is not begging the question throughout. Can any sensible man say, that, because Turkey did not choose to exercise any authority upon the application of the American offi cials, that therefore her right of sovereignty was gone, and the position of the parties was the same as if they were in a desert; that Turkey had no rights which could be violated, no authority which could be defied by the commission of act? of war upon her soil ? Can it be as serted that, becausc Turkish authorities do not sec fit to prevent, upon application, the forcible arrest and impri sonment of a Hungarian refugee, that therefore it is the right and the duty of the vessel of any other nation to take the authority into its own hands, and consider the Government upon whose territory the act takes place as altogether null and void ? Can there be a greater insult to any Government than to say that its dominions are beyond the pale of the law of nations : that its territorie* are to be considered a barren waste, wanting " the imme diate presence or controlling direction-' of any recognised authority ; and that it is the right and duty of every other nation, by the laws of humanity and of nature, to protect the weak and punish the aggressor while within its ter ritories, at whatever cost of violence and blood ? Can such a doctrine be advocated ; can such nn opinion be tolerated for a moment in a country which recognises Turkey as a sovereign nation upon an eqnality with her self, as evinced by the presence of a Minister at her Court and the negotiation of treaties between the respective lands? The proposition is an utter absurdity. Had such an act been perpetrated upon our soil and such a defence been assigned for it, thei* would hove been no bound* to the indignation ef the American people, no limitation to the redress sought and demanded by them. Wounded pride, outraged justice, violated authority, all would have combined to draw forth such a demonstration of wrath as had never been surpassed in the history of the world. But suppoae it were as Mr. Marcy says; suppose Smyrna at the t:me to have been a barren, unfrequented waste, would Austria then have been in the position of a robber, Koszta in that of a victim? The writer has already argued this point pretty fully, but it may be well to review it. Suppose that Koszta owed an allegiance by birth, is the property of the Government, and commits treason. Has not the Government the right, when she thereby violates tho rights of no other Government, to seize and punish this her property? By her municipal law the subject owes perpetual allegiance, is her property, and, therefore, wero he in a desert where, by seizing upon him, she would violate the rights of no other na tion, she merely exercises her prerogative, carries out the provisions of her municipal law, and no other nation has the right to interfere. Again, suppose Koszta has made a contract with the remainder of the Austrian people, by which he has agreed, | in return for protection to be afforded him by them, and for mutual benefit, to support, honor, and obey a particu lar form of government until the voice of a majority of them may see fit to change it, agreeing at the same time upon certain specified punishments in case of his wilful failure so to do ; and should afterwards turn round, dis-^ obey those laws, andvndeavor to overthrow that (tovern meut?would it not be perfectly justified, where by St) doing it inflicts an injury upon no other body of men simi larly situated, iu eeiziug upou him and making him uu- ; dergo the penalties which lie has agreed upon V . j In cither case Kosita suffers no wrong, because he hM deliberately joined an undertaking iu which he knew fell well the penalty of failure. lie choose to run the rilk ; lie accepted the alternative, and has no light to complain when he finds that he rnubt buffer the penalty. If, tien, Koszta was iu a desert, hid bcixure and Imprisonment was a simple cxcroiso of municipal authority over the j person ol' a rebellious citizen, where such exercise con- J dieted with the rights and obligations of no other muni oipal government. In arresting Koszta Austria did not violate the sovereignty of the United States, nor was the seising upou one whom the United States were under , obligations to protect. Koszta could uot claim the protec- j tiou of ibis Government us u matter ct r:?ht: he hud en- ( tertd Into no agreement with this i :.>verucueut, either , express or Implied, by which the one was bound to obe dience and support, the other to protection, lie could not demand u share of the Government funds if slxip ' wrecked and distressed in ft foreign port: nor could the Government demand his assistance in time of war, or fine him for not rendering that assistance. There was no mutual obligation, no mutual support, such as are re quisite to a valid contract between the parties; nnd therefore, were Turkey to be regarded as a desert, Aus tria would have had by the law of nations the right to seize upon Kosztn, and the United States would have been unlawfully interfering in the private municipal af fairs of Austria. The principle " Sic Mere tuo, ut ahtn umnoti laJat," governs Austria, and when she complies with its provisions no other Government has the right to interfere with her. The case is the same as that of a ship at sen, where one of the sailors refuse- to do duty and deserts; the captain has an undoubtod right, by the law of nations relating to maritime matters, to seize and to punish him. If another vessel having no claim to the pos session of such seaman were to interfere #ud prevent his capture, it would be a clear violation of law, which would justify violence at the hands of the injured party, even though he had signed the shipping articles of the vessel to which he had deserted. Mr. Marey next proceeds to nssert that Turkey, by its laws, permits the Consulates therein to receive under their protection acy strangers who do not osMUiilate with j the Turks in religion and manners ; taat they are, there- J fore, governed by the -rules of international law apphca-, ble to the tribes of Asia and Africa, and so long as they j continue under such protection are to be considered on*. tives of the country which the Consulates represent, and . ,.uotcs a decision rendered by the Lords of Appeals in the j English High Court of Admiralty that a merchant car-1 Tying on trade at Smyrna under the protection of a I Dutch Cotsul was to be considered a Dutchman an to aia national character. Therefore, he says, the moment he c-nic under the American Consul's protection, it he were not before, he became invested with au American ?? .tick ????:,OoroJ the rest cf Europe, in the bame situation as Chin o | ii 1 since that tim\ the Turks have pursued a lnrl?eXhtencd and liberal policy. They have attempl Z to introduce into their midst all the Improvements of modern times: they ba~ admit** <*r?tun minister, i \nto their land;'they have allowed foreigners u.e light of ' peaceful passage through their country : they have tole rated persons of all denominations and sects in religion , in h word, the Sultan, though a Mahommedan, has prove himself the most Christian prince in Europe They have become a civilized nation ; they have admitted and re spected foreign consuls and ministers they have sen their ambassadors to other nations : they have rccogniseU the principles ond admitted the authority of iaternationa. law. Speaking upon this subject, Mr. Kent says, after alluding to the interference of France, Great llritain, and llussia in favor of the Greeks against the Ottoman Porte in 18^7, and the interference of Austria, Groat Britain, Prussia, and llussia iu the civil war between the I'orte and Mahemet Ali in 1840: "These, as wellas other a-:ts ? and pacifications, have effectually place In. o " lin ? the pale of the public law of Europe." If. then, sh?lis within the pale of that law. Mr. Marey cannot avail l.Ihi self of the exception to the rule that " men take their national character from the general character of the coun try ia which they reside." The writer has seen fit here to take Mr. Marey upon his otrn ground, though he considers tbi* ** merely a branch of the question of commercial domicil. We come next to the argument thnt the American Gov ernment had the right to protect Ko.^ta on account of his American nationality. Mr. Marey assumes that if he had aa American nationality the American Government had the right to protect him. He then attempts to prove his American nationality, which he does in the following man ner ? First. Koszta had a domicil here, and, if he had au American domicil, he was clothed with an American na tionality. Here Mr. Marey proves his case. Kof*ta had an Ame rican domicil, and was invented with an American nation ality ; but the domicil and the nationality might exist i him and yet the United States might not have been oblige, t. protect him; or, to use Mr. Marey s language, might not have had the right to protect him. Mr. Marey ha undoubtedly proved that Koszta had a commercial domi oil in this country; that as to bis property ho was invest ed with an American nationality : and yet the *cr> < u s he has cited to prove it will tell him that it is only " to his property that he is stamped with nuch and that his native allegiance is not s.tercd orv.i a y its existence. He has taken no ease, he has cite l no in-. stance in which the political rights of the ^ ?f fccted by the domicil or the nationality of which Mr. Marey speaks. It is scarcely necessary to argue tat sub ject. Any lawyer, any politician, any merchant, possess ed of the least degree of information in their respective ! professions, can see that Mr. Mnroy's rope is made of sand ? that he has been misled in supposing that the law which regulates the property regulates the person, and has been arguing triumphantly in the establishment of premises which, when proved, do not at all aftect theques tion which he is discussing, and if admitted would not give Koszta a single political right under the Government of the United States. A very aMe article upon this sub ject appeared in the editorial columns of the Notional In telligencer, under date of October 4th, 1838, showing spe cifically the utter absurdity of Mr. Marty's positions upon this subject. Perhaps the distinction cannot be better stated than it has in tho opinion delivered by Judge Wash ington, in the ea?c of the United States against Gillis. 1 Pet C. C. Rep. 101. "I must be more enlightened ? upon this subject than 1 have been," ssys that learned judge, "before I can admit that a citixen of the United ? States can throw off his allegiance to his country with ? out some law authorizing him to do so. It is true that ? a man may obtain a ronaiox oomoiL which will impress ? upon him a watiokal ciiauacter for commercial pui ? poses, and may expose his property found upon the ocntn ? to all the consequences of his new character, in like I ' manner t^ if he were in faot a inbjeet of the Government ? under which he reaides ; but he does not on this account !' lose bis original character, or cea*t to be a tubjtct or citizen j' of the country where he wtu. born, and to which hit }> <*pt(i4al J' allegiance is due." j Mr. Morcy, after engaging in this fruitless ?rgt?Uft$, ? states his conclusion that the United States "Lad the j right, if they chc.'e to trercue it, to extend th?ir j rctcctioa , to Martin Koszta." To the phraseology of tiii* Fentoace the writer objocts. No nation has tho right to protect an individual, depending upon their choice whether or no to exercise that right. Nations have duties to perforin to wards their own citizens or subjects, in failing to perform which they commit a positive wrong I, they have no dis cretionary rights. The only right they have is the right of performing their duty, and if they resort to measure? of violence, except in the fulfilment of a duty, hey do wrong. A nation's rights aro its duties. Where a Gov ernment goes beyond those duties it transcends its prero gative. Thus, if the American Government wore un der obligations to protect Koszta, she inflicted r. wrong upon a country with which she was at peace by interfer ing with her in the exercise of her municipal anthority. Had she become involved in a war wilji Austria she would have done a positive wrong to her own citizens by sacri ficing their means and their blood unnecessarily. And Ed of almost every other case; whvro a Government goes be yond its ascertained duty, it runs the risk, if it d3es not actually do so, of injuring its own citizens. Was the Cuited States bound to piotect Mnriiu Loszta? Could he have demanded protection of her as his right? Was there any compact betweou them by which he was entitled to protection ? None at all. He had simply de clared his intentions of becoming a citizen. She could not bind him by that declaration, nor had she promised him any thing in exchange for it. She cannot demand his personal assistance in time of war, nor can he demand of her tho assistance in his extremities which she ex tends to her own citizens. She only owes to him the duties of hospitality while within her borders. IIow foolish, then, it is to say that she has the right to protect one who has no right to that protection ; that she has the right to re sort to hostile measures to protect one who is not her citi zen, but is a citizen of another country by the law of that country! There are, however, some other peculiarities about Mr. Marcy's letter which are worthy of attention, more espe cially on account of the ideas they suggest. If Mr. Mar cy's argument be correct, of what country is Koszta a ci" tizen? Not of Austria; for, according to Mr. Marey's argument, his intention of domiciliating himself in the United States, and his oath renouncing all allegiance to other Governments, breaks the chain which one? tied him to her laws; not of the United States, for he has merely declare 1 bis intention of becoming a citizen, which inten tion may be changed at any time when Mr. sees fit. He is therefore a citizen of no country: h? owes no country allegiance : he can commit treason against no country. If, in a war with Austria, he is taken fighting an enemy's battles, he commVts no treason, for he is not a subject; if, in a war with the United States, he is takea by her battling for an opposing nation, he commits no treason, for he is not a eitlr^u. He has no social ties which connect him wfth any Government organization of men; he in >uarch of himself: and ho cannot there fore be accused of a violation of those tics, or be punished for dissolving his connexion with n Government whenever and wherever he may see fit. This is the first greatpf culinrity of Mr. Murry's argument. It is possible, nay, it is nt any mo'.n-nt in the power of any man to render himself a citizen of no country. AgiJn: suppose Mr. Ko ^tn thus being a citizen of no country, shou!' enli?' in tho United States army, (it be | ing permitted tv alter. to on?i -1, \ and in the tuhKt of a battle should daart to the o-.emy, conld he. If taken nfhM such desertion, be h 5 1. r it Certainl;- r.et; he has committed nj tvea on . be hn1 merely changed his intentions with regard to bccou. n? & citizen ; aud though an American court-martial might u ng him for hi? pains, yet, according to Mr. Marey's idoa, such hanging would be a gross violation of the Uw of nation?, and sure to bring down upon our erring country the uuIvctmI indig nation of the civilized world. Thin is another pHa&arity suggested by Mr. Mercy's argument. Ag.iin, T(for it is a poor rule that don't work Loti wny?:) suppose that .* citi/vn of the United State.* enlists in the army, and during n war with Mexico deserts to the enemy, declares his intention of becoming a citizen, and after such declaration is taken in arms by an American troop?is Le to bo adjudged guilty of treason or not ? ".No," says Mr. Marcy; "he has renounced h'i> alle ? giauce ; he has acquired a 4 Mexican national'.':ihe is ' not a citizen, and therefore cannot be guilty of l.vaeon.** " It Is not contended that this initiatory step in the 4 process of nationality inve?tod him with the civil rights 4 of a Mexican citizcn ; but it is sufficient for all tae pur ' ] oses of this ca e to "how that he was clothed with a 4 Mexican nationality." It may be objected to the two last cases that there are municipal regulations and decisions providing for them aud their punishment; but then it should be recollected that, according to Mr. Marey's idea?, 14 the law *>f na 4 tions has rules of its own on the subject of allegiance, 4 and disregards generally all restrictions imposed upon 4 it by municipal code?.'' Dut the great au*l crowuiug peculiarity about the whole is, that notwitii dan-ling a man may ho a citizen of no country in the world; notwithstanding ho >wes no allegiance to the 1'aited States, save the mere naked duty of every alien not to interfera with her laws white withia her territory; notwithstanding he has it in his power to desert her at any moment which may suit his own idle fancy, to oppose Her interests and thwart her plans; not withstanding he may at :ro instant's warning join the ranks of her enemies and battle against the continuance of her very existence as a nation, still she, with more than a mother's tenderness, is bound not only to afford him that protection against frand and violence while within her territories which it is the duty of every hospi table nation to ^rant, but to follow him over the high seas, into far distant lands, to track him back even to the land of his nativity, amid manners, tongues, and laws of which she is ignorant, and there to unfurl a! o>e hir.i tho banner of the Republic, to surround him with the repre sentatives of American power, and to exhaust her re sources and pour out the blood of her citizens in defence of what Mr. Marcy calls "hi? Afhtric-in nationality." Admit such a principle for a moment, nnd you throw the entire management of eur foreign policy, not into the hands of one man, who can wield her power and draw upon her resources with a despot's sway, but into the hands of every man who avails himself of the hospitality ?f American laws; you, stake American honor upon his declaration of intentions ; you involve America in war to assist him in carrying out those intentions. The Hunga rian revolutionist, the French republican, the Knglish chartist, or the Cuban filibuster, ufter plotting riots and seditions at home, can come here, make their declaration of intentions and return the next day before the eyes of 1 the vot-y Government they have been upturning, protected by the shield of ??American nationality." Or suppose. ! the better to meet Mr. Maroy's objections, they were to I remain here for years and return to their native country, not to breed fresh rebellions, but to collect a note, consult a physician, or buy a flute, thf foreign municipal law, like the American municipal law, would hang them f< r trea son, while the principles of international law recognised by these United States would compel us to <lo batt.c either in defence of their lives or as a punishment for their deaths. Tridy this is a great country, when the mere intention to become a citizen of it clothes tunate intender with all the privileges and immumfre* with which American wealth, American power, im I Ame rican honor oan invest him, and makes a foreign peasant, scarcely a two years,' resident here, an object to excite the attention, arouse the energies, and call forth the interfer ence of a nation whose territory Is boon led ttp<m ei e? side by the ocean, and whose population number* *ome twenty-five millions inhabitants: BUNUWWE.