Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1853-10-08

that particular status which is well known and dehned
in the prize courts as national character title
which is found in the Law Digests, and under which
the cases cited by the Secretary are collected.
With unfeigned Difference to the learned Secre-
tary and with unaffected difidence upon profess
sonal question like this, we submit to him that this
(" national character" has nothing whatever to do
with the present question. An examination of the
textbooks and cases to which we are referred will,
we think, make this apparent. Mean time let US
quote passage or two from Mr. MARCY, that we
may be sure we have not misunderstood him. He
says:
If Koszta ever had lonaica in the United
States he was, in virtue thereof invested with the
nationality Of this country, and in this character
continued as long as that domaic1 was retained"
Again he says i: !" The establishment of his do
nica here invested him with the national character
of this country, and ruth that character he acquired
the right to claim protection from the United States,
and they had the right to extend it to him as long
as that character continued"
Without pausing to comment upon the admission
involved in the language which we have italicised
above, (and which, while it contrasts strangely with
the disclaimer Of obligation before quoted seems to
duty,) we remark that the Secretary traces the
right and the obligation to mere domica. Accord
ingly he proceeds, in another place, as follows:
CAS- the national character, according to the
law of nations, depends upon the domcil it remains
as long as the domcil is retained, and is changed
with it. Koszta was therefore vested with the Ma
| TIoNALITY OF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN at Smyrna, if
| he, in contemplation of law, had domicil in the
United States. The authorities already referred to
show that to lose domicil when once obtained the
domciled person must leave the country of his resi-
dence with the intention to abandon that residence
and must acquire domicil in another. Both of
these facts necessary to effect change Of dom-
Gil, but neither of them exists in Kosztas case"
Again he says " 1t is maxim of international
law that domicil confers national character it
does not allow any one who has domcil to decline
the national character thus conferred it forces it
upon him, often very much against his will, and to
his great detriment."
With these passages before US, there is no room
for doubt that the Secretary POUNDS our claim of
right (and, of consequence, assumes obligation)
upon the mere ordinary and MISUNDERSTOOD case of
COMMERCIAL DoMIcIL.
We say of commercial domicil, because, in the
cases where the question Of national character in
regard to belligerent rights has arisen (and which
are the only cases, it seems to US, which can be
supposed to have any bearing upon the matter in
hand,) that fixed residence, amino maaendi, which
gives national character" is called commercial
domicil." Strictly speaking, the expression ma
tonal character" does not belong TO cases of dom-
Gil in regard to the succession to personal estate
the validity of wills and testaments, &C., although
it has been used in that connexion by judges and
text writer's for questions of domicil in this class
of cases frequently arise between different States
in the same National Union or Confederacy, and
even between different local jurisdictions in the
same State The case of Kosciusko, decided by the
Supreme Court of the United States at the last
term to which we are referred, presented the ques-
ton whether the succession to his personal estate
was to be governed by the law of France or Of Lii
tijuana, and this question depended upon his domicl
The case in l Binney was question Of succession,
it being admitted that the deceased was subject Of
France domiciled in St. Domingo at his death; and
the point determined was that his will could only
operate if valid under the law Of his domicil And
in the notes to this case we find reported similar
question arising between conflicting claims of dom-
Gil in the States Of Delaware and Pennsylvania
But was it ever before imagined that either of these
cases, or any Of that class involved any ques
ton or principle touching the right or duty of ma
tional protection to a party SO situated Has it
ever before been suggested that such an one is
otherwise situated with regard to such right or duty
than any sojourner in the land, who, while 50
sojourning and observing the laws, and not being
an alien enemy, is entitled to such protecton-a
right which, it must be obvious, grows out of the
corporea presence Of the party within the territory
Of the Sovereign, and is terminated with such
presence?
But the principle Of "national character" in the
other class Of cases approaches nearer the doctrine
now advanced by the Secretary and requires little
closer attention.
And, first, we submit it to the candor Of the Sec
rotary that no or dictsm can be found extend
ing the principle to the PERSON, in respect Of his
allegiance, any right duty of protection to his
person. On the contrary it lies at IFS very ounda-
ton that it is wholly irrespective Of the question Of
allegiance. 1t is applied, in cases Of capture in the
very face Of admitted allegiance to the Government
Of the captors, by the courts of that Government
itself Such was the famous case Of the Venus,
arising in the war of 1912, cited by the Secretary
That was the case Of capture made on tic high
seas BY an American privatcer; and it is the pgcmi-
ncnt feature ia the case that the owner was an
American citizen who had shipped The goods from
England, where lie had commercial house, 10 IN
American house Of Which lie was member, before