Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1853-11-05
For the Standard.
DOMICTT,

way of reply to an editorial in late number of the
National Intelgencer on the subject of the Koszta
difficulty
The Editor of the Intelligencer says we took oc-
casion to express prompt dissent to the appca-
ton of such national character" to koszta 1T SEEM
ed to US upon reason and authority TOO plain TOT
controversy that such neither owed any duty
as citizens nor could claim any right as citizens.
Now think if Kosztas domicil is admitted can.
prove by the abest civilian that has ever written upon
international law that he had obtained the natonal
character" or to use the expression OF Mr.. Marcy,
he was clothed with American nationality.
Grotius whose worldwide fame has reached the non
professional reader in his work entitled de1ure beta
ct Taci," quoted by Wildman in hs4work on in
tcrnational law, page SO, has said, Those who are
domciled in country acquire its national character
no less than native subjects" Here you will see
that of the oldest and one of the latest writers
upon the laws OF nations, and both standard autAoTs
concur in the opinion that if Koszta had acquired
domcil here when seized at Smyrna he thereby had
acquired our national character less than native sub
iects. Had Martin Koszta acquired domlcIl when
seized? The Intelligencer seems, by asserting that
he "neither owed duty citizen nor could Claim
any rightds citizenp to deny that he had or could
acquire doicil here before naturalization; or by
italicsingthe adverb as, to imply that he did owe
dutyyin some other capacity than citizen substan-
ai difference with verbal sembance calculated on
" to mislead the ignorant and disquiet those who
wish to take fair view of the question Ii he meant
that foreigner cannot obtain dOmcil here without
becoming citizen by the regular process of natu-
ralization, think can prove from the best text
books and authorities that the position is incorrect
Mr. Phllimere learned English civilian, in his
treatise on Domici page 15--9, discusses this very
proposition and cites French case from Merlin OIL
rectlv deciding this very point; the laws of France
at the time of this decision required any one who
wished to gain domicil there first to obtain the
Royal permission, and the case in question declares
that person may acquire domlcll IN France, al
though he has not obtained the Royal permission;
the case was taken from two inferior courts by ap-
peal to the highest tribunal in France, where the de-
cision above mentioned was made Mr. FhllImere
adds 1t is true that this only established that
person so domciled was justictebte by the French
tribunal but the reasoning seems equally valid to
prove that a principal donicl may be de Jdct0 &C
quired by person who was not himself entitled TO
the privileges of domiced sub beet. See also the
English case of Collier Us Rivaz, Curteis $50, dec
ding the same point and the following passage oc-
ours in the opinion delivered in the case OF the
g AngeEdue" After a full hearing the Court of
Appeal were of opinion that by the general law all
foreigners resident within the British dominions in
CURED all the obligations of British subjects, &c
Robinson Id Rep, $50. Here you will see that |
the word resident % is used instead of domiced,
a much weaker term than domicil, as you will per-
ceive by the case of Hume cs Herne, Iredell, SO,
where our Supreme Court held that " donch and |
residence not convertible terms, for although
domic necessarily includes residence either actual
or constructive yet there may be residence without
domici as in the case of student coming to this +
State from another. think it fair argument that
if foreigner resident ineurs all the obligations
of natives much more should one who has become
" domiciled." Again. quote from Philllmere, page
y Savigny, in his learned work the History of
the Roman law in the middle ages ascribes the
growth fpersonal rights and personal duties OPP
posed to territorial laws to the state of society which
ensued in the conquest of the Roman Empire by the
their separate manners and laws. The |
noderns ~ he observes, always assume that the
aw to which the individual owes obedience is that
IF the country where he lives, and that the property
SOTO prVr aSH are TPOJ1latp6 hV
he law of his domic." 1t will be noticed that the
ase cited from Robinson speaks only of mourning
obligations but the Intelligencer assumes and
correctly, that duty and right are correatve terms,
saves me the trouble of proving that the case is
II point. think these authorities prove that man
nay not only incur obligations and claim rights
rom government without having perfected his cit
zenship to such degree to entitle himself to all
he privileges of native, but also that may
cquire domicil de tactO although he should not
urSue the course marked out by law to become an
american subject or citizen And this leads us to
he aist of the whole dispute, to wit, Did KosZta
cquire domicl in this country previous to his trip
D SMYRNA? According. to all the textbooks there
three kinds of domicil, to w.t. by birthor origin
y necessity, and by choice. Every one acquires
emicil of origin in that country where he is born
rovided his parents be not IN atinere consequently
-oszta, being born in part of the Austrian domn-
ms, acquired domicil of origin in Austria, which
ould certainly remain until another was acquired
ccordng to the principal established in the cases of
omerville Is. Somervle, Vesey, jr., 7S5, Guier
Daniel, Bnney 349 note, Hume Cs Herne, 8
.ede, &c. and not contradicted by any author of re-
reliability except Domat. To gain domicil by
hoice two things necessary, to wit, the actual
rcsence of the person in the country, and inten
on on his part to make that country his permanent
1ode. Upon proof of actual residence the law pre-
1mes the intention "Domicil is presumed where
lie party resides. w ildmaT. " Residence is prinaG
rcie evidence of domic. Hume Herne, Ire
ELL But as Koszta's residence here is admitted,
link can prove his intention to make this his
homen The books have laid down various guides
ascertain the parties intentions, and among the
st are " oral and written declarations
lge 113 and same book says, ''The French Code
zacts that the proof of intention shall follow upon
express declaration made either to the municipal
Y from which party removes or to that to which
transfers his domiciI And in the case of Munro
Munro, Clark and FINELY Report of cases in
ouse of Lords S42 great stress was laid upon state
ents made in letters In the principal case KosZta
pursuing the course marked out by Congress to
1tain naturalization, took and subscribed an oath
efore Court competent to administer such oath,
Intaining short solemn disayowal of all allegiance
foreign powers, and of his intention to make this
,untry his future C home" The French Code, as
e have seen, makes such an oath even declara- !
on proof of his intention. And as the French
ode, which is the essence of the civil law, from
hich the laws of nations are principally derived,
axes such an oath Koszta subscribed, or even /
S decaration to the Mayor of New York, proof of '
s ,inteutiop, j think we might argue that our
ourts would at least receive as the highest eUi-
nee of such Intention, and therefore argue that t
artin Kosza had acquired domicn in this country
id he lose such donic by his trip to Smyrna Dr.
DRY, in his Contiet> of Laws, page 48, says, :" A
ere return to the native country, without intent