The Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1852-1853, 1853-10-12

AMI Respectable IN every quarter OF tue
globe.
This right to protect persons having a do
mieil, though not natiYe-bOrn or natura'ized
citizens, rests on the firm foundation of JUS
tice, and the claim IN be projected is earned
by considerations which the protecting pow
er is not at liberty q disregard. Such dom
iciled citizens pays the same price or his
protection rs naliye-born or naturalized cit
liens pay for theirs. lie is under the bonds
OF allegiance 10 the country Of his resi- IeRce
and if he breaks them incurS the penalties;
he owns the same obedience to the civil laws,
and must discharge the duties they impose
on him: his property is in the same way,
and " the same extent as theirs, liable to
contribute to the support Of the government
In war he shares equally with them in the
calamities which may befall the country:
his services may be required for its defence;
his life may be periled and sacrificed in
maintaining It's rights and vindicating its
honor. In nearly all respects his and their
condition rs to the duties and burdens OF
government are undistinguishable; and what
reasons can be given why, so far at least as
regards protection to person and property
abroad as we'll as athome, his rights should
not be co-extensive with the rights Of ma
tive born or naturaized citizens? BY the
law of rations they have the same national
ity. and what right has any foreign power, for
the purpose of making distinction between
them to look behind the character given
them by that code which regulates national
,,t,,oo,,raaI Whau fh.. lauJ of do
termines the nationality of any man, foreign
governments are bound to respect its decls-
ion.
I They would have no cause to complain if
the protecting power should stand upon It's
extreme rights in all cases; but that power,
in dscharging its duties ofprotecting, may
+ or sufficient reasons, have some regard for
/ the civil distinctions which its own laws
make between the different classes of per-
sons to whom iC has the ri sht, under interna-
| tural law, to extend its protection. II will
naturally watch with more care, and may
act with more vigor in behalf of native-born
and naturalized citizens, than in behalf Of
those who, though clothed with its nationali-
ty, have not been so permanently incorpor-
ated into its political community.
! Diving effect to these well established
principles, and applying them to the facts in
The case, the result is, that Koszta acquired
while in the United States their national
character, that he retained that character
when he was seized at Smyrna, and that he
had a right to be respected as such while
there, by Austria and every other for
eign power The right of nation to pro-
! tect, and require others to respect, at home
and abroad, all who are clothed with its ua-
tionality, is no new doctrine now for the
! first time brought into O. Grafton by the u
nted States. 1t is common % al nations,
and has had the sanction of their practice
for Ages; but it is new that at this late peri
/ cd when the United States assert claim
TO it as common inheritance it should at
once be discovered that it is a doctrine
fraught with danger, and likely to compro
mise the peace of the world. The United
States see no cause of alarm, no reason fOl
renouncing for themselves what Others have
SO long and SO harmlessly enjoyed.
There may be reluctance in some quar-.
ters to adopt the views herein presented re-
lative to the doctrine of domicl and conse
quent nationality, lest the practical as,er-
tlon of it might in some instances give a
right of protection to those who do not de,
serve it.
Fears are entertained that this doctrine
offers a facility for acquiring national char
acter which will lead to alarming abuses
that under the sha low of it political agita
tors, intent upon disturbing there own and
both countries, might come to the Uniiet
States with a view to acquire claim tC
their protection, and then 10 return TO thei
former scenes of action to carry on under
u changed itional character, their ulterio
designs with greater security and betlel
success. This apprehension is believed tt
be wholly untounded. The frs: distinct &C
done by them towards the accomplishment
of these designs would disclose their fraul.
ulent purpose in coming to and seeking q
domlcIe in this country. Such a develop
ment would effectualy disprove the fact tina
they acquired domicil here, and with i
our nationality. Without that nationality
they could not be considered as standing
under the protecting arm Of the UnlteC
States, and consequently could have nj
TO claim, and no reason to expect, it would
be exerted in their favor. Their fraudul.
ent intent would defeat all they could hope
to gain by residence in this country, anC
by insncerely protesting to make 1t thei
home. The intention entertained in goot
J faith to make it such a home would be want
ins and without such an intention nelthe
. domicil nor nationality can be acquired
: This consideration should dispel all suspic
/ ions that this doctrine as to nationality ant
| protection will not be as safely used and as
well guarded from abuse by the Unite.
: States as it has been in times past, OR ma.
, be in the future, by any other sovereignpo pow
/ er.
There is nothing in the doctrine herei
maintained, or in the history of this govern
, nlent, to awaken the slightest apprehension
that it is in any way inclined to extend thu
shield of its protection over adventures q
seditious propoganists, who may go from
this to other countries to- engage in enter
prises designed to interfere with their politi
! cal institution or disturb their internal quiet
The liberal policy of the United States, in re
gard to receiving immigrants from all ma
, tons, and extending to them the advantage
Of their free institutions, makes it an act c
justice on their part to maintain the right @
1 national protection to the full extent author
Ized by the law ofnations, and to resist wit
frmness any attempt to impose new restric
0 tons upon it.
| FNLovo - Iba. VIC &C flie Vvbio