Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1853-10-05
MIR. MARCY and the Austrian Protest.

hT.V
the protest of the Austrian government against the
conduct Of Capt. INcnAHAM at Smyrna, has ap-
peared in the Washington newspapers, and we
have read it with much interest. 1t is pronounc-
ed an able document, but goes rather farther in
sustaining the claim of koszrA to the protection
of our government than even some partlzans OF the
administration can defend. The Richmond En-
quirer, for instance, denies that koszrA has any
such claim upon US.
The Austrian protest, as communicated to our
government is emboded in letter from MIR. HUI
sEMANN to Mr.. MARcY. The grounds assumed
in it are stated by the latter in his reply, as fol-
lows:
His Imperial Majesty demands that the gov
eminent Of the United States shall direct koszta
to be delivered to him; that it shall disavow the
conduct of the American agents in this affair, call
them to u severe account, and tender satisfaction
proportionate to the outrage"
Mr.. MARCY proceeds to give narrative of
KoszrA's arrest, and shows plainly enough that
Austria had no right to seize him in Turkish ter
rtory. The complaint of Austria that Capt. In
GRAHAM had violated the neutrality of the port of
Smyrna, is shown, in courteous terms, to be un-
reasonable and ridiculous as her own officials had
done the same thing, and particularly as Turkey,
the only power which can assert any right to COM
plain on that score, has not uttered word of dis
satisfaction. Mr.. MARCY then argues very salts
factorily that the conduct Of Capt. INGRAHAM was
| I'm ha eli
of KoszTA's right to American protection, the Sec
rotary contends that it is based upon the fact of
his having established domcil here, as proved
by his residence of more than year, and his de-
caration of intention to become citizen of the
United States. He quotes various authorities to
show that domcil clothes an individual with tne
nationality of the country in which he resides and
gives him claim to its protection. He says
ssThere may be a reluctance in some quarters
to adopt the views herein presented relative to the
doctrine of domcil and consequently nationality,
lest the practical assertion of it might in some in
stances give right of protection to those who do
not deserve it, Fears are entertained that this
doctrine offers facility for acquiring national
character which will lead to alarming abuses; that
under the shadow of it political agators, intent
upon disturbing the repose of their own or other
countries, might come to the United States with
a view to acquire claim TO their protection, and
then to return to their former scenes of action to
carry on, under changed national character, their
Interior designs with greater security and better
success This apprehension is believed to be
wholly unfounded. The first distinct act done by
them towards the accomplishment of these designs
would disclose their fraudulent purpose In coming
, to and seeking domicil in this country. Such
development would eflectually disprove the fact
that they acquired domlci here, and with 1t our
nationality. Without that nationality they could
not be considered as standing under the protecting
arm of the United States. and consequently could
have no right to claim, and reason to expect 1t
would be exerted in their defence. Their fraud
ulent intent would defeat all they could hope to
gain by residence in this country, and ny lnSn-
5 cerely protesting to make it their home"
1 MIR. MARCY concludes as follows:
"The conclusions at which the President has
arrived after full examination of the transactions
, at SMYRNA, and respectful consideration OF the
views of the Austrian government thereon, as pre-
scented in Mr.. Hulsemann'S note are, that koszta,
when seized and imprisoned, was invested with
the nationality of the United States and they had,
therefore, the right, if they choose to exercise IT,
to extend their protection 10 him; that from inter
national aw-the only law which can be rlghttui-
~ appealed to for rules ofactlon in this case-aus
tria could derive no authority to obstruct or inter
fere with the United States in the exercise of this
right, in effecting the liberation of Koszta; and
that Captain Ingraham's interposition for his re-
lease was, under the peculiar and extraordinary
circumstances of the case, right and proper.
These conclusions indicate to Mr.. Hulsemann
the answer which the undersigned is instructed
BY the President to make to the Emperor OF Aus
tria to the demands presented in Mr.. Hulsemann's
note.
"The President does not see sufficient cause Tor
disavowing the acts of the American agents which
are complained of by Austria. Her claim Tor sat
isfacton on that account has been carefully con-
sidered, and is respectfully declined
"Being convinced that the seizure and imprls-
onment of KoSzta were illegal and unjustlllable ];
the President also declines to give his consent TO
his delivery TO the Consul General of Austria at
SMYRNA; but, after full examination of the case,
as herein presented, he has instructed the under
signed to communicate to Mr.. Hulselnann his CON
ident expectation that the Emperor of Austria Will
take the proper measures to cause hlartih kosz'a
to be restored to the same condition he was In be-
fore he was seized in the streets of Smyrna on the
2lst of June last"
The late news from Europe intmates that the
expectation was INDUCED at Vienna that our gov
ermment would surrender KoszTA to Austria
Mr.. MAncY's lettor will extinguish the hope, and
| teach wholesome lesson to the Emperor Of Aus
tria and his allies.
European Governments and the Koszta Affair.
It is now known that the governments OF Nus
STA and Prussia had instructed their representatives
at Washington to intimate to the President their
General concurrence in the view taken by Austria
of the KoszrA case there is still, however, some
doubt in regard to the position of England and
France. The Union in an article prefixed to the
correspondence between Mr.. HULsEMANN and MIR.
MARCY, alludes to the subject. but does not ex-
plain it fully The National LntelHgencer says
After stating what Russia and Prussia did, 1t
1.-THE Union saws that "the Ministers of France
and England proceeded in the premises with tar
more praseworthy circumspection." But what
did they, circumspectly or uncrcumspectly 3
Why-divesting the statement Of IFS mystlfylng
verbiage-simply this, that France had made
known 10 the Cabinet of Vienna its dsaPprobatlon
of the proceedings ofthe 4ustrian functionares at
SMYRNA in regard to Koszta; and that the view 1t
takes of the transaction looks rather to the rights
and territorial sovereignty of Turkey than the In
terest and pretensions of Austria" Very well;
but are we to understand that this is all that the
French Minister communicated to the Secretary