The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1853-10-06

lOTeBOiuE Dub Ohtlttbu
who was pr SENT as Mr. Hulsemann states,
when Koszta was examined, and made the
declaration imputed TO him, says, in writing 10
the Minister Resident Of the United States:
" ! am astonshed TO see by Mr. Browns letter
that Koszta declared himself ON our first inter-
view Hungarian. | did not hear him say
son II may well be doubted whether Koszta
ever used any such language. Should it. how
ever, be admitted that he did make that or a
similar declaration, it cannot be fairly under
stood to imply an acknowledgment that he
was then q subject Of the Emperor Of Aus
tria. To apprehend rightly what he meant
by such declaration, it is proper to consider
his situation, his known sentiments and his
antecedsnts In his mind, no two things could
probably be more distinct from each other
than Austria aud Hungary One was an OBJ
ject of his averson--the other an object of his
love. His affections clustered around the land
Of his birth, and were the more intense because
he thought that country had been cruelty
wronged and he knew it was unfortunate. In
his visions Of the future, he saw happier
destiny for Hungary. He saw her standing
proudly among the independent nations Of the
earth under a clement Government emanating
from the will of the people, and defeating its
constitutional authority to their general well
fare. In the fallen condition of Hungary he
thought it base to disown her, and glornnns to
claim her for the land of his birth. a.
ton when this declaration is suppd I've
been made is also to be regarded in IT, fret-
ing his words. He was in the hands Of Aus
trian agents, loaded with letters, and warned
Of his own doom by the knowledge of the sad
fate of so many of his unfortunate compan-
IONS In this forlorn condition he could not
have intended by the language ascribed to
him, to acknowledge any unbroken tie which
then bound him to the Emperor of Austria
The undersigned is brought, by a fair appli-
cation of sound principles of law, and by
careful consideration of the facts, to this i'm
portant conclusion-that those who acted in
behalf Of Austria had no right whatever to
seize and imprison Martin Koszta.
1t will be conceded that the civil authority
of Turkey during the whole period of the oc-
currences at Smyrna was dormant and in no
way called into action. Under these circum-
stances-Austria without any authority-Tur-
key exercising none-and the American func-
tionares as Austria asserts, having no right
in behalf of their Government to interfere in
the affair, Ia proposition which will be here
after contested what, then, was the condition
of the parties at the commencement of the
outrage, and through its whole progress
They were all, ia this view of the case, with
out the immediate presence and controlling
direction of civil international law, in regard
to the treatment of Koszta The Greek hire
| lings Koszta their victim and the Austrian and
| American agents, were, upon this supposition,
all in the same condition at Smyrna in respect
| to rights and duties so far as regards that
transaction, as they would have been in if it
| had occurred in their presence in some unap-
propriated region lying far beyond the confines
of any sovereign State whatever; they were
| the lege subjects of the law of nature, moral
| agents bound each and all alike to observe
the precepts of that law and especially that
which is confirmed by divine sanction, and en-
| joins upon all men everywhere, when not
acting under legal restraints, to do unto others
whatsoever they would that others should do
unto them; they were bound to do no wrong,
and to the extent of their means to prevent
wrong from being done; to protect the weak
from being oppressed by the strong, and to re.
ieve the distressed. In the case supposed
koszta was seized without any rightful au.
thority. He was suffering grievous wrong
any one that could might relieve him. To dc
so was duty imposed, under the peculiar Cir.
cumstances of the case, by the laws of hui
| did for the release of Koszta would, in this
view of the case be fully justified upon this
| principle. Who, in such case, can fairly
take offence! Who have right to complain
Not the wrong. doors, surely, for they can ap.
peal to no law to justify their conduct They
can derive no support from civil authority, fol
there was none called into action; nor from
the law Of nature, for that they have violated
To place the justification Of the American
agents still further beyond controversy, the
undersigned now proceed to show that
koszta, when he was seized and imprisoned al
Smyrna, had the national character of ar
American, and the Government of the United
States had the right to extend its protection
| over him
| The genuineness of the certificate which h,
produced, when he claimed protection as al
| American citizen, has been questioned, in con
sequence of the imperfect copy given by Mr.
! Brown to the Austrian lnternuncio but tina
which he produced to the American Consul a
Smyrna, and to Captain Ingraham, to the com
mander OF the Austrian brig Huszar, and Il
| the Austrian Consul General, was genuine. A
correct copy of it has been sent to this Depart
| ment and verified by comparison with the
record Of the court in New York in which
Koszta made his declaration in due form Of
law. To remove all doubt on this subject, a
certified copy of that record is annexed to this
communication.
1t is not contended that this initiatory steI
i'm the process of naturalization invested him
with all the civil rights of an American citi.
zen but it is sufficient for all the purposes OF
this case to show that he was clothed with an
American nationality; and in virtue thereof
the Government of the United States was au.
thOrized to extend to him its protection, at
home and abroad. Mr.. Hulsemann, AZ the
undersigned believes falls into great error
an error fatal to some of his most important
conclusions--by assuming that nation can
properly extend its protection only to native
born or naturalzed citizens. This is not the
| doctrine of International law, nor is the prac-
| tce Of nations circumscrbed within such mar
row limits. This law does not, as has been
before remarked, complicate questions Of this
nature by respect for municipal codes. In re-
lation to this subject, it has clear and distinct
rules of its own. IL gives the national charac-
ter of the country not only to native born and
naturalzed citizens, but to all residents in it
who are there with, or even without an inten-
ton to become citizens, provided they have a
domicil therein. Foreigners may, and often
do, acquire domicil in a country, even though
they have entered 1t with the avowed intention
not to become nsturalized citizens but to re-
turn to their native land at some remote and
uncertain period; and whenever they acquire
domcil, international law at once impresses
upon them the national character Of the coun
try Of that domicil II lie a maxim of inter
national law that domicil confers national
character; it does not allow any one who has
a domicil TO decline the national character thus
conferred; it forces it upon him often very
much against his will, and to his great detri
ment international law looks only to the ma
tional character in determining what country
has the right to protect II person goes from
this country abroad with the nanlity OF
the United States, this law enjoins upon other
nations to respect him, in regard to protection
| as an American citizen Il comedies 10 eyaru