The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-10-14

temps de 20 paseance ses parents avssnt leur domece
oa PEia don't son pers etsit cmbGe sos &c qui review
! - meme ehoss cAf st'adty posr e.jssys chez
uon ccsl en- devenir membTe moins CONNIE habitan
peIpeue 81 &C mes, point ,ou,ss les drois des CHI
Eens" (vanel lie. 10, s 2i9, Dss vagabondsI Ee,
'hSss who ai s NJ Marcy, dosrs point Ii.
ahcIehce made oy the law OF nations between citizens
and domeilsd suss 10 every instance in which inter
national law Is called into operation whether In peace or
~ war; The domcied subject and The citizen is placed on
sne same ioons 4 has been suggested that the national
character win which domic invests an individual is
merely for commercial purposes and applies exclusively
to property. There is foundation fol this restricon
MI Webster IN his letter TO Lord Ashbsrlon the sub
1ect OF npressmeni, before alluded to- says "TheIe
may be quite as just prerogave right the property
OF subjects as TO their personal services in exgency
OF TIE Stale but no government thinks of controlling
by lis own laws property Of it's subjects situated abroad
much less does any government think OF entering the
territory OF another power for the purpose OF seizng
such property and applying il 10 ills own uses As laws
the prerogaives ri the Crown OF England have no ob
CATION on persons property domciled or situated
abroad" Suppose British seaman domiciled. but not
nalurazed, should enlist as sailor In one Of our
chant vessels, ands on arriving al Smyrna, should 20
ashore, and while there be impressed into the British
service would for instant submit to the lndgnily
The only ground OF our clam to redress Of right
to protect The SEAMAN would be his Americas d0mcl and
consequent naonay for the seizures in the case sup.
posed IS not made shpboard Where il the difference
IN principle between that and the OF Kosztal
welesabllshed principle OF international law that per-
sons who enter the military service Of tJreign Sste
qure the domci of that State Would we have permit
ted Great Britain to treat foreign officers who entered our
service during the American revolution otherwise than
a. prisoners OF war If captured! II American domicl
did not cothe such officers with American nationality,
and ente them to American protection. what right
would we have 10 demonstrate aganst their being
sdeted and treated unlawful begerensl No appre-
hension need be entertained that American consuls in
Turkey will become covered over with Turkish nation
atty TO use the phrase OF "Vermonter") II "ver-
monte had perused the judgment Of Lord Sowell in the
case OF the "lndian Chief" he would have discovered
that "in the East. from the Oldest times an smmiscbe
character has been kept up foreigners admitted
into the general body and OF the society Of the
tIon they continue strangers and soournerp, not
curing any national character under the general sover-
eighty OF the country" Hence 'Vermonier" may 20 in
safety TO Smyrna, panopled in his mmscible character
of American, and need not fear Of becoming Turk
unless fosooh he should feel disposed to cast aside the
Christian religion adopt the Koran for his guide, in,
due himself with the beard and lurban OF The Mussul.
man, and, posra,ing himself in the midst Of circumam
bent wives, excaim Allah sgreat and Mahomet is his
prophet" LOUISIANA.
OCTOBER 10, 1853