Plymouth banner. (Plymouth, Marshall County, Ind.) 1852-1855, 1853-10-20
Plymouth, Marshall County. Indiana, Thursday,

! eu, nut lie mas IOrUoEne 10 quote TIE n on
account of the unworthy motive ascribed
therein 10 the powers making the de msnd :.
and the harsh epiihets by which their CON
duct is characterized.
1t is incident of great sigui ficance,
and bearing authOritatlvely upon some
of the most important questions now
raised. that the case OF koszta. (for he
was one of the Hungarian refugees then
dc MA nded.) was fully discussed in l849,
not only by the parties, but throughout
Europe, and decided against the right of
Austria 20 require this extradition, either
under the law of nations CIR existing trea-
ty stipulations. This decision deeply
/ interested not only rulers and statesmen.
but the great body of the people of every
country. They investigated its merits.
/ admitted rs justice, and commended the
Grmness and humanity Of she Sultan for
his course.
J 1t is to be egre.ted that this claim for
the surrender Of Koszta and his conpan-
/ ions. 60 fully considered then. and SO
slgnally oveTFuled. should be again reyv-
ed by Austria under circumstances which
make the United States a reluctant party
liz the Controversy. The claim has been
repudiaied by the general judgment of
Europe, and this government is unable TO
discover any sufficient reason for t,issen.-
ing from tha decision.
Austria appears 20 have beea nwara
that her right 10 seize koszta could not
De sustained by international law, and
she has attempted to derive it from trea-
Ties. OF ancient capitua;ions by treaty
usage" The very slight and inexplicit
manner in which this authority is advert
ed to in MI HUI semsnn's note apparent
!; indicates, ifnos waat Of confidence
In it, at least a desire not to have il scru-
tinized If there really was such an au-
thofity, and il was OF such an extTS ordina
ry character as i is assumed to be. 1t
would have constituted. as Austria must
have clearly seen. the mdlB strength Of
her case, and she would not have referred
20 lsia such a manner as TO leave the
very existence of il open to doubt or
question. The paragraph referring to 1t
is the following:
As there can be no doubt, therefore,
concerning the question of nationality,
. the Consul General of tho Emperor at
S:nyras was without doubt perfectly jus
llied when. in virtue Of those treaties
which subject Austrian subjects in Tur-
sey to consular jurisdiction. he seized the
person OF koszta within the pale Of his
jurisdiction
If there be such treaties comforting such
power with such extraordinary means
OF enforcing II, strange indeed it is lhst
more prominence is not given 10 The fact
In Mr.. Hulsemsnn's communities tior.-
Why are the dates of these treaties with.
held? What ia still more important. why
is not The Language conveying this au.
thosity quoteaY The undersigned is Goa
strained, for reasons he will briefly assign,
TO question the accuracy Of the interpre!s-
tion which derive. th- right claimed IN
the above paragraph from any existing
treaty between Austria and the Ottom.n
Porte
The Austrian intsrnuncio at Consien-
tinoPle. in conference with MIR. Marsh.
the American Minister residsn,. spoke OF
such risht ss derived from ancient ca pit
ulstions by treaty and usage II is not
shown or alIedged TIL. new treaty stipuia-
zion since 1919 have been entered inte
by Turkey and Austria. The ancient
| crpitulations" were relied on to support
The demand in that yee- for the surrender
OF the Hungarian refugees; they were
scru:inized and no such authority es is
now claimed was found in them.
The French and English ministers at
Constsntinop.e. who advised and sus-
tained the Sultan in resisting the demand
OF Austrls for their extrddition. would
not have given such advice if they could
have found in existing treaties any au-
thority for that demand. or any obiiga-
lion Oh the part of the Sultan 10 yield to
is. Lord Palmerston. then her Bfitan-
mic Msjrsty's principal Secretary ofS,ate
/ for Foreign Affairs, carefully examined
these treaties. and expressed his concIu-
sions therein In a letter 10 Sir Slratford
Canning. dated oath September. l649.-
In this letter. which contained an extract
from one Of these treaties-that of Bel
srade-and referred TO the claims of Aus
tra founded on them, for the surrender
Of these refugees. ne says; The utmos,
that could be demanded, would be that
| they. (the refugees should not be al
lowed to reside permanently in the Turk
ish empire"
Coming down to later period-to the
very transaction at Smyrna--abundant
reasons are found for denying that Tur-
key was then under any treaty obligation
to deliver Koszta to Austria, or that her
Consul General had authority to seize
HIM. On this subject ii is allowable to
! resort TO the declarations of the public
men of the Porte as evidence in regard 10
an issue of this kind. Their explicit de-
HAL may be fairly considered as equiva-
lent TO Austria's affirmation without
proof, where proof, if it existed. could