, 1853-12-17
Marsys Letter to The Austrian Minister

There has probably no State paper ema-
mated from the Government Of our country
since the famous reply of Mr.. Webster 10
Chevaler llulsemann, the Austrian Minis
term which the true spirit of our free in
s,itutions, and their maintenance in our for
eisn relations are SO clearly defined, and
promulgated in tie mastery style of the
great, ,expoundsr of the Constitution which
has so fully mel the appreciation OF the en-
lire American people, as the recent letter
of Secretary Marcy TO this representative
Of Austrian despotism, in which the same
doctrines are reiterated in an equally bold
and forcible style, and the course Of the
American Naval Officer who dared 10 main
taiu those doctrines in a foreign port, fully
sustained.
The great length Of the admirable letter
Of the Secretary prevents our publishing ii
entire. Or even such portions as would give
our readers an adequate idea of its merits.
The following epiIome of this letter which
we find in the New York Times, a whig
paper, gives as c'elr and definite an idea of
its merits, as anything We have seen on the
subj ct:
Mr.. Marcy's letter is very elaborate
and a very successful performance. Mr..
IIulsemann seems 10 have prepared the case
for the cxpr, IS purpose of giving his oppo-
ueuI the advantage at every point. A weak
rr paper could not well have been written
on such subject, than bis letter published
in the Times yesterday morning. 1t lacks
equally facts, logic and law. j; is ieebler,
if possible, than his note demanding Of Gen.
Taylor an apology for having sent Mr.. Dud-
ley Mann into Hungary in pursuit Of knowl-
edge.
MIR. Marcy's reply is far less pretenlious
and imposing in its character than the IA
nous letter Of Mr.. Webster. But it is quite
as cogent and even more conclusive, so far
as the immediate issue in hand is concerned
It's Argument is clear and close and Meth.
- Austria nor any other power can make
reply to it which will have the merit even
Of FEASIBILITY. Mr.. Marcy puts the qups-
ton upon much borrower ground, than
that which Austriahad assigned to il. The
whole case, having arisen in Turkey, where
neither Austria nor the United States have
municipal Jurisdiction, fails exclusively
within ihe domain Of international law, and
must be decided by its rules. This at once
avoids all discussion as 10 the nature and
obligations of allegiance, so far as these
points involve conflict of municipal laws.
Austrian laws on this subject we've entirely
imperative in the case of Koszta. This is
rendered very clear by ref-rance 10 the de-
mands made on Turkey in 1s49 aud 1850
BY Russia for the surrender Of Polish re-
fugces, and by Austria for the surrender
of Kcs,uth and his companions, including
Kozsta, both Of which were peremior,ly
refu: :ei and lha, refusal was fully approv-
ed by France and England, and acqui,sced
in by Russia aud Austria themselves. The
point is pressed with great force arid ronclu-
sivencss and diplomatic surprise, (which
implies a rebuke,) is expressed that claim
which has once been canvassed,and repudia-
ted by general Judgment Of Europe should
be revived and urged on the United States.
That Austria has no treaties with Turkey
which confer on her agents power 10 ssize
political ofenl,rs, is mad, equally certain.