Daily American telegraph., 1851-12-30
mr. webstor's Argument ON the Law OF
DOmiciI.

Thrasher case, says
"Iu reference to his Mr. Thrasher's) right to
protection as an American citizen, he MIR. W.
says that when person removes his permanent
residence TO another country, 1T becomes his
place of domicil, Notwithstanding any floating
| intention of returning. He quotes from the
United States Supreme Court decisions The fol-
| lowiag sentence: 'That person, who removes
to foreign country, settles himself there, and
| engages in the trade of the country, furnishes
| by these acts such evidences of an intention
permanently to reside in that country as to
stamp him with its national character"
If the editors of the "North American" will
consult the case of the Venus, (8 Cranch's Re-
borts from which the above sentence was quo
ted by Mr. Webster, they will find
1st. That Mr.. Webster has selected one single
sentence from the lengthy opinion delivered by
Mr. Justice Washington, and has suppressed The
essential and material part, an whtch The very gisf
of the matter consisted.
ID That there is not the most remote analogy
between the case of Mr.. Thrasher and that of the
Venus Mr.. Thrasher's case presents question
| as to the political national character of Amer
lean citizen residing in friends country, in time
of peace and under the sanction and protection
of treaty. The case Of the Venus presented a
question Of the commercial national character, not
of a citizen, but of certain goods shipped by him
from an eaemys country, where he had estab-
lished his commercial domicil previous to the war.
The decision Of the Supreme Court, which Mr..
Webster has thus attempted to misrepresent was,
that ''f an american citizen establishes has donic
| in foreign country, 6etoeen which and the United
States hostlities afterwards break out, any PROP
ERTY shipped By such citizen before hnoVIedge Of
The soar, and captured By an american cruiser after
The declaration Of ,car, must be condemned as laaM
prize"
The words suppressed by Mr.. Webster, and
which are absolutely Indispensable to just un-
| derstanding of the views of the majority of the
court, are the following:
Wah reference to the seizure Of so much of his
| PROPERTY concerned in the trade Of The enemy as is
| connected acith his residence"
| To this extent, and no further, an American
| citizen residing and engaged in commerce in a
foreign country becomes, under the rule laid
down in the case of the Venus, Impressed with
national character different from that which
permanent allegiance gives him." The argu-
rule shows clearly that it is q rule of the COM
merciaL laV Of prize courts and not of the political
law Of nations; that it is in derogation of the
political rights of the citizen, but was considered
necessary as the best mode of reconciling the
conflicting rights and interests of behgerents and
| neutrals, of captors and original owners. So far
from intending that an American citizen, by set
az, IN, do in
has its national character stamped upon him, so
as to forfeit his right to the protection of the
United States government for his political rights
as citizen, it is clear that the assertion of such
monstrous doctrine never occurred to the minds
of the judges as thing possible. If SO, they
would have disclaimud it ozProosly and indis-
nantly. 1t was left for the present Secretary of
State to originate this new principle of the poll
teal law of nations, by garbling and misquoting
the language, and by perverting the obvious
meaning, of the Supreme Court.
The learned and lamented Story Ito whom Mr..
Webster is indebted for much of the material on
which his political as well as his legal reputation
rests) declared his centre concurrence in the
opinion expressed by Judge Washington" limit
ing the consequences to which the character ac-
qured by foreign domicil might expose an
American citizen, in the event of war breaking
out between the United States and the country
of his domicil, to $50 much Of his property con-
cerned in the trade Of the enemy as is connected aoih
has residence"
Chief Justice Marshall dissented from the
majority of the court and contended that the rule
limited as it was, went much too far in deroga-
ton of the rights of the citizen. He said:
al entirely concur in so much of the opinion
delivered in this case as attaches hostile char
acter to the property of an American citizen con-
tinuing after the declaration of war, to reside and
trade in the country of the enemy; and sub
scribe implicitly to the reasoning urged in its
support. But from so much of that opinion as
subjects to confscation the property of citizen
shipped before knowledge of the war, and which
disallows the defence founded on an intention to
change his domicil and to return to the United
States, manifested in a sufficient manner, and
within q reasonable time after knowledge of the
war, although it be subsequent to the capture,
feel myself compelled to dissent.
"* The subject of one power, in
habiting the country Of another, ought not to be
considered member Of the nation in which he
resides, even by foreigners; nor ought he on the
first commencement of hostities to be treated as
an enemy by the enemies of that nation"
After quoting Vattei and Boutamaqm in favor
of this doctrine, Chief Justice Marshall adds:
If this rule be obligatory foreign nations,
much more ought it to bind that of which the
individual is member.
81 think / cannot be mistaken, when ] soy,
that in all the views taken of this subject by the
most approved writer's on the law of nations, the
citizen of one country residing in another is not
considered as incorporated in that other, but is
still considered as belonging to the society of
which he wns originally member And if war