The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-10-06
neci.l rrOuna Of Onnlapt for Il other nations have

pecal ground Of complaint for il other nations have
stipulated for such privileges or having no tres-
ties uuSt submit 50 the general pfioclplesoi lnterha
tiopsl law that Is no reason why she Uatei States
shoud fail 10 enforce the sfipulatipns Of the treaty
they have m7de witn Span. Besides TINS. Saain
knows ,uR well that uoher Great BRIAN or Fran
allow any other Interpretation T. be gisen TO thor
treaties tbau fuch may suit their interests add
purposes. that their Citl2ene whether right or
Wrorg invariably protected and upheld, eyea
in coutYayeurisn of 1rsstits sld that they at
all times ready TO enforce submission - their d.,
mauds need only 10 cite tho case Of rurobnll,
British consul at Matapzas. nd chief Of the negro
conspiracy discovered some years since, aud .hs
of hr. Gross, ogn c)nsul ~ the same place.
aud that Of Mr. Ihr8sher. tur far more iusigaid.
cant offences, in evidence OF the very different vea
the authorities here likely take of questions
in which our citizens are concerned.
Lord PaimeTston stated in OF his late speeches,
that the British subject, like the Roman of old,
should feel sure of the protection Of his country
wherever be might be, and that the government OF
Great Britain would not consider whether he HAD
been tried according TO the laws Of the country ia
which he might be resident, but whether those Ia Va,
and the administration thereof, in consonance
with British ideas of justice. 1t is this principle,
ete ctivey carried ont, that gives the Drtish subject
50 marked an advantage over us, aud makes ,t n
matter of Indifference TO him whether there be .
treaty between his native and his adopted country
or not, whether he be q transient, domicied, or
naturaized resident.
come now to the arguments Of Mr.. Webster.
lead you to suppose that can entertain any doubt
whatever, rs TO the fidelity and submission to the
laws due by all persons resident in foreign coun-
tres, no matter what may be the nature OF that
residence; as TO the perfect and complete right
Of all nations to try, and to condemn, and punish,
all offenders against their sovereignty Neither do
entertain any doubt as to the justice OF the gen
eral principle, established by the Supreme Court of
the United States regards the national chara,
acquired by foreigners by the Of settle nent
in n country rs merchants, &c., although they msy
have done nothing further to acquire citizenship.
My doubts are, rs to how far those general prin-
ciples modified by special treaties, and in par
tculnr by that existing between the United States
and Spain. 1t appears to me, that, If the general
principle that an individual, by the mere act of set
ting in foreign country, loses his native citizen
to the protection of his government, be not re-
stricted by the stipulations Of special treaties1
say it appears to that in this case it is the
treme of absurdity to introduce into such treaties
clauses having no other object whatever than the
protection of a claes, which cannot by any posi-
bility be supposed to exist, viz citizens of one
country residents as merchants within the jurisdc
tion of another. Yet all our treaties have such
clauses and the articles 9TH and 18th Of tina. with
Spain, and the article of that with Great Britain,
relative to reciprocal liberty ofcommerce, of this
nature.
Great Britain does not acknowledge the right of
her citizens to expatriate themselves, and copse-
quently must reject the general principle admitted
by the Supreme Court of the United States. The
ground taken by Mr.. Webster, evidently with q
view to provide against future contingencies,
would therefore be of avail in any question
which might arise the subject between the United
States and Great Britain 1t is not strange
to find the latter constantly interfering for The
protection OF her subjects, when resid.nt abroad not
merely as simple residents, but naturalized cit-
zens; but if the United States does admit that
the general principle alluded to is modified and
stlcted by special treaties, on what ground, (uot to
60 further back did the government interfere in be-
half of American merchants, established in
Venezuela, in the question of the Law of Espera 4!
On what ground have the American merchants
taolshed in Mexico, who were obliged to leave tho
country ut the time of the war, been indie unified by
the government of the United States According
to the general principle. they had TO all inteuts and
purposes, become respectively Nenezuelsns and
Mexicans and if that general principle be not mo-
oaed by special treaties, the United States had
right 10 interfere in the fret case, and we're, the
second, rs much bound to indemnity the native
d, xicans ss the American rt6idents
On what ground If the general principle be not
modified by special treaty, has Spain claimed that
the Spapiards, resident ut New Orleans, should DO
Unidentified for their losses in the late riots True,
the United States have replied that they must seek
the indemnity tbIou al the same channels taat
tive Americans would be Obliged to seek it; but if
they. according TO the general principle, have en-
tirey lost all claim on the protection of the Spanish
government, the reply Of the United States 10 the
latter should have been simply: ~ on have right
whateverto interfere in the matter" If, however,
the Spaniards a. New Orleans do not, through the
regular channels, obtain justice it will be found
that the government of Spain will make that of tho
nited States responsible for their losses or, ia
other words, she will not Acknowledge that by the
mere act of settlement in the United States they
have lost all Claims to her protection.
But if it be conceded that special treaties de mo-
dify and ,estric; the general principles of inerna-
tional law, then those general principles cannot be
appe aled TO where special treaties exs. And do
lot know Of one Of our treaties that does not, by
the only Just Interpretation of some Of its clauses,
clearly indicate the possibility of the settlement,
merchants in foreign countries Of American citzcas,
preserving, at the same time, their character as
such, or rather preserving, notwithstanding the
tional character they acquire, right to the privi-
leges stipulated for by special treaty
For instance the thirteenth article of the treaty
with Spain stipulates that one year from the de.
claration OF war shall be allowed to the merchants
OF each in the cities and towns Of the other, where
they shall reside to collect their goods, transpor.
them, &c, &c.
Now, there cannot possibly be any such merchants
iftbose are not such, who, according to the general
principle and the Spanish law of domic,le have lost
their American citzenship, for none others can be
merchants residing in towns, &c IL is. therefore,
to admit either that these tho parties
referred to, and that the intention OF the article is
to limit and restrict the general principle, aud the
effect OF the law OF domicie, TO extent sufficient
to allow American merchants to retain right to
the privilege stipulated for, notwithstanding their
having settled and become domicied, or to confess
that the article stpulaes for privileges in favor Of
S.asS WHICH eduhob sAlsLs anu tn 81 IL Is aDSurV
There Gun be 10 doubt that in case of a war with
Spain, the United States would be bound TO claim
and enforce the fulfment Of the thirteenth artice
or, in other words, would be bound to protect class
OF her citizens, which, according to the general
principle bad lost their right to protection, because
that general principle is modified aud restricted by
the said article.
! cannot--I say it with great diffdcnce-agrce
with Mr.. Webster, in believing that 1.-THE seventh
article cannot be construed as comforting upon
foreigners privilege not enjoy by the natives,
because it IL not the practice of nations TO de
such privileges" The exemption Of the property
of foreigners, whether transient domicled, from
embargo or detention for military purposes-the
emption of their persons from military and munich
pal duties, and from the obligation to receive troops
billeted upon them are privileges not enjoyed by
citizens Mr. Webster comedies moro than is claimed
by Spain, for the Supreme Court does not attempt
to deny the privilege conceded by the seventh art-
Gle, but asserts that it was observed even in the
case of Mr. Tbrasher. is true they may be I'M
derstood as asserting that natives are allowed the