Daily American telegraph., 1851-12-26

citizens and subjects of both pdrties shall be ait0Dea
10 employ such advocates, solicitors, notdres factors,
and agents as they may judgeeproper IN all their
affairs, and in aU their trials al laa0 IN Whieh they
mag be concerned before the tribunals Of Ms other
party; and such agents shalLNaue free access 10 be
present at The proceedings such causes, and at the
taking Of al examinations and evidence achich mag
be exhibited in the said trials"
Now, it is clear that this article of the treaty
was altogether disregarded and violated, if Mr..
Thrasher is to be considered an American citizen.
Mr.. Webster therefore labors to prove, by the
most adrot and cunning sophistry, that he had
taken up his domicil in Cuba, had thereby ceased
to be an American citizen, and was no longer en-
titled to the protection guaranteed by the treaty
Mark the peculiar phraseology of Mr.. Webster's
argument. Of course this government could not
interfere to protect Mr.. Thrasher from the ''pen-
ales justly incurred By him IN consequence Of his
oiolation Of the iaaos of Spain" But it had right
to demand for him fair trial, counsel to conduct
his defence, and opportunity Of proving his inno-
cence. The onus pro5andi was upon his accusers,
and this government has right-nay, it is
bound-to apply to him the universal maxim Of
law, that an accused person is presumed innocent
until proved guilty; and Mr.. Webster and the
Spanish authorities have no right to presume that
he has violated the law and justly incurred its
penalties.
We call the attention of every lawyer in the
United States to this argument of Mr.. Webster,
and ask them to read and compare it with the
decision Of the Supreme Court in the case Of the
Venus, g Cranch Reports, which he has quoted.
It will then plainly appear that he has selected
detached and garbled passages from that de-
csion, in order to make it appear that, under the
rule laid down by the Supreme Court, Mr..
Thrasher, by residing in Havana, has lost all his
rights as an American citizen, and become pohti-
cally, as well as commercially, Spanish subject.
A few quotations from that decision will show
clearly that the Supreme Court meant no such
thing as Mr.. W. endeayors to represent, and that
their language referred only to 50 much Of the
property Of an American citizen resident in an ene-
mys country as might be found adhering 10 the enc
mg, That very decision, which he quotes, ex-
pressly negatives the monstrous doctrine which
he attributes to the Supreme Court That deci-
sion referred, not to a country at peace with the
United States, and in which American citizens
are authorized by and under protection of treaty
to reside but to a state Of war and an enemy's
country; and under that decision "the national
character stamped" upon an American citizen, con-
tinuing to reside in an enemy's country after a
declaration Of war, attaches only to that portion
Of his property achich may be found engaged in The
trade of The enemy 1t does not affect his property
in his own country or elsewhere, and much less
does it deprive him of his political rights as an
American citizen
Mr.. Justice Washington, who delivered the
opinion of the court in that case, said:
"There being no dispute as to the facts upon
which the domicil Of these claimants is asserted,
the questions of law alone remain to be consid-
cred They are two: first by what means, and
to sohat extent, q national character may be i'm
pressed upon person, different from that which
permanent allegiance gives him? And secondly,
what are the legal consequences to which this
acquired character may expose him, in the event
of war taking place between the country of his
residence and that of his birth, or in which he
had been naturalized?
The doctrine of the prize courts, as
well as Of the courts of common law, in England,
which, it was limited, if not asserted in argument,
had no authority of universal law to stand upon,
is the same with what is stated by the above
writers, (Vattel and Grotus,) except that it is
less general and confines The consequences resulting
from this acquired character to the PROPERTY
9f those persons engaged in The commerce Of The
(enemys) country, in which they reside.
"The next question is, what are the conse-
quences to which this acquired domicil may le-
gay expose the person entitled to it, in the event
of war taking place between the government
under which he resides and that to which he
owes permanent allegiance? A neutral in his
situation if he should engage in open hostilities
with the other belligerent, would be considered
and treated as an enemy. A citizen Of The other
JeIligerent could not be so considered because he
could NOT, ly any act Of hostility, render himseH,
strictly speaking, an enemy, contrary 10 his perma
neat allegiance. But, although he cannot be con-
sidered an enemy in the strict sense Of Tie ooord yet
he is deemed such WITH REFERENCE TO TIE
SEIZURE OFSO MUCH OF HIS PROPER
TY CONCERNED IN THE TRADE or THE
ENEMY As rs CONNECTED WITH HIS
IL u.s. found adhering to The enemy.
He is himself adhcring TO the enemy, although not
crimnally So unless he engages IN acts Of hostility
against has natiUe country, or, probably, refuses
,ohcr required 6y his country, 10 return"
Now, is it not surprising that Mr.. Webster
should have thus garbed and misquoted this de-
cision for the purpose of sustaining the tyranni-
cal despotism of Cuba, by arguing away the rights
of an American citizen? 1t does, indeed, seem
incredible; and we again ask every lawyer in the
United States to read and compare his argument
with this decision. We put it to the common
sense of every man in the United States-lawyer
or laymnn, learned or unlearned-is it not mon
strous that an American Secretary Of State
should contend that an American citizen, who
goes, under the protection Of q treaty to reside
in a country with which the United States are al
peace, thereby forfeits his right to American
citizenship and protection, and becomes q sub.