Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1852-10-23

is both instructive ana Weii-Dilheu "o0A'iaeeiioi
Il the sub;oined information, part OF which being
new to us may be SO to some OF our readers.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF COMMERCE.
Chief Justice TANEY in delivering the Opinion
of the Supreme Court IN the passenger case, lays
down most explicitly the principle for which we
contend:
Ithink it therefore to be very clear both upon prn-
cpe and the authority of aduged cases. that the several
States have right remove from among their people,
and to prevent from entering the State any person or
class or description of persons whom it may deem dan
gerous or injurious to the interests and welfare of its
citizens and that the State has the exclusive right to
determine in its sound discretion whether the danger
does or does not exist free from the control Of the General
Government"
Infinitely stronger is the argument in favor of
the supposed right, thus overthrown, than is the
supposed right in the case of citizens who claim
that they may force themselves upon, Cuba in def
ance of her police laws. Our treaty with Spain is
far less precise in respect to the rights conferred by
it of transit and passage through the Spanish terri
tory than is our Constitution in respect to the right
of citizen of one State to have transit and passage
through another but yet the Judges of the Supreme
Court, in the weaker case, have laid down that
right of exclusion in an unmistakeable manner IL
is the very principle for which the authorities OF
Cuba contend. The opposite Of this principle Is
what? That strangers may determine the mode
and manner Of intercourse with others settle the
nature and extent of the police regulations adopted
by Others and so settle them that the foreign coun
try may easily be invaded and overthrown. The
Southern States might be overrun and destroyed II
that were the settled law of nations. Such law
might be used to break down the settled action OF
any people which had the peculiarites of condition
that belong to Cuba and to parts of our own
country Vattel thus lays down the rights of
Nations:
The sovereign may forbid the entrance of his terri
tory either foreigners in general in particular
or certain persons for certain particular purposes
according as he may think advantageous TO the State"
Kent lays down the same rule:
eff however any Government deems the introduction
of foreigners or their merchandise injurious those in
terests of their people which they at liberty
protect and promote, they liberty to withhold the
indulgence"
But suppose they are admitted, what is their
duty? We ask this question in order that the an
swer of Vattel may be applied to the conduct Of
Purser Smith:
From of gratitude for the protection granted,
and the other advantages he enjoys the foreigner ought
not to content himself with barely respecting the lars Of
e country; ne ought 10 assist IL upon OCCASION anu con-
tribute to its defence far consistent with his duty
citizen Of another State"
But contemporary insists that these rules are
changed whenever treaty is made; that is to
say, that treaty which by its terms was made for
mutual advantage may be used SO far to the disad-
Vantage of of the contracting parties that its
jurisdiction Its police laws is destroyed or af
fected by its provisions Now, let us suppose that
our treaty with Spain were much broader than it
actually is in respect to the mutual right Of COM
MERGE which is granted, what would be its interpre-
tation when it came in conflict with the local police
regulations Vattel says:
" If the assistance and Offices that due by virtue Of
such treaty treaty to permit commerce and passagel
should any occasion prove incompatible with the duties
nation herself with what the sovereign owes
his nation rAcIrLY and Unnecessarily eresped
in the treaty"
We have shown that stranger who enjoys the
protection and hospitality of foreign nation is
bound not only to abstain from acts of hostility,
but, as a recompense for what he thus enjoys, is
held by writers international law to various du-
ties which 90 to its protection, when those duties
not inconsistent with his obligations to his own
country 1t is very clear that Purser Smith is hon.
estly supposed by the Spanish authorities to have
used his opportunities in Cuba to aid in New York
those who are engaged in efforts to wrest that pos
session from Spain. If the Spanish authorities are
wrong in this respect, Purser Smith is in the unfor
tunate condition of all those who are charged with
offences of which they are innocent, but as to whom
the law takes its course-inficting punishment in
the shape of temporary confnement-until the mat
ter is finally adjudicated