Daily American telegraph., 1851-12-26


Mr.. Owen has returned to the United States,
Of his conduct at Havana. If we are not mista-
ken, he has appealed to the public to suspend
their Judgment until he can have time and occa-
sion to vindicate himself AS it is, he has been
very bitterly denounced by theApublic press and
in public meetings throughout the whole country,
and we look with interest to his forthcoming ex-
plantations 1t seems to US that he has been very
unjustly dealt with by the press, the public and
the government We are far from approving his
conduct, but think it not right that he should be
made the scapegoat for the sins of others. He
obeyed has Instructions His offending hath this
extent-no more. Yet he has been overwhelmed
with contumely and indignation while his supe-
riors, whose orders he obeyed, (and in the usual
course of things IL ~as his duty to obey,) escape
without censure or reproach. He did not disobey
his Instructions; and for this his own friends,
his superiors, who gave him those instructions,
have removed him from Office under circumstances
which brand him with disgrace. Now, is this
just Is it honorable? Is it not ungenerous
1t has been said that Mr.. Owen misapprehended
his instructions, and that for this he punished
by removal. But has not all the world put ex-
acty the same Interpretation on those instruc-
tions that Mr.. Owen did Did not the govern
ment organs in this city labor for weeks to sus-
tain the same interpretation? And has not the
Secretary of State recently admitted, in his cor
rcspondence with the British and French Minis
ters, that that Interpretation was just and COR
rect 4?
Both the "Republic " and the "National Intel
ligencer" teemed with articles denouncing Crit
tcnden and his party as pirates and outlaws,
"not entitled to the protection Of any govern
ment." Commodore Parker, in his report to the
State Department. dated Havana, September 6,
1851, says that, in his interview with the Cap
tain-General Of Cuba, the latter stated that he
considered them as pirates and that they had been
50 denounced IN The proclamation Of The President Of
the Tinted States"
Lord Palmerston, in his despatch of the 22d
October, says that "Me United States government
Itself has denounced them as not being entitled 10 the
protection Of any government"
Mr.. De Sartiges, the French Minister, in his
note of the 9th of October to Mr.. Webster, says
that The instructions issued 10 the commanding Off
Ger Of The French IVest India station only
tended 10 apply to case of piracy; )" and that The
French government HAD REASON to 6elieue that it
rould find in those same latitudes the american
squadron acting IN the same spirit and pursuing
similar object plainly intimating that the
French government put the same Interpretation
on Mr. Owens instructions that he did.
1t appears from the published correspondence
that Mr.. Webster acquiesced in the interpreta-
tion put upon the proclamation by the Captain
General of Cuba and by the English and French
governments. Was it not, then, most unjust to
dismiss Mr.. Owen in disgrace for his misappre-
hesion in not giving to it different interpreta-
ton?
Mr.. Owen has also been bitterly denounced for
!" malicious neglect Of duty" in MIR. Thrasher's
case Yet Mr.. Webster, in answer to the resolu-
tions Of inquiry of the House Of Representatives,
takes the same view of Mr.. Thrashcr's case that
Mr.. Owen seems to have taken. AS the latter
has only acted under the instructions of the
former, is n just that all the blame and denuncia-
tion should fall on the devoted head of poor Mr..
Owen.
Mr. Webster argues to prove that Mr.. Thrasher
had forfeited his right to American protection by
going to Cuba to reside. He says:
'The first general question, then, is, as to his
right to exemption from Spanish law and Spanish
authority, on the ground of his being a native
born citizen of the United States.
'sThc general rule of the public law is, that
every person of full age has right to change his
domicil; and it follows, that when he removes to
another place, with intention to make that
place his permanent residence, or his residence
for an indefinite period, it becomes instantly his
place of domicil; and this is so, notwithstanding
he may entertain floating intention of returning
to his original residence or citizenship at some
future period. The Supreme Court of the United
States has decided 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 per-
mancntly to reside in that country as to stamp
him with its national character and this un-
doubtedly is in full accordance with the senti-
ments of the most eminent writer's, as well as
with those of high Judicial tribunals, on the sub
iect. No government has carried this general
presumption further than that of the United
States, since it is well known that hundreds of
thousands Of persons now living in this coun-
try who have not been naturalized according to
the provisions of law, nor sworn any allegiance to
this government, nor been domiciled amongst us
by any regular course of proceedings. What
degree Of alarm would it not give to this vastly
numerous class Of men, actually living amongst
us as inhabitants of the United States, to learn
that, by removing to this country, they had not
transferred their allegiance from the governments
of which they we're originally subjects to this gov
ernment? And, on the other hand, what would
be the condition of this country and its govern
ment, if the soyereigns Of Europe, from whose
dominions they have emigrated, were supposed to
have still right to interpose 10 protect such IN
haJi0nts against the penalties which might be Justly