Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1853-11-05

telling that the law Of nations generally dsregarded
hem and that controversy of this kind be gov
ened entirely by the law of nations, he makes Aus
ran decree the subject Of argument and philippe
What business has any National Government with the
private legislation of another Government? Austria has
her municipal regulations for the preservation Of her
internal peace and prosperity, with which it behooves
other nations to interfere In the exercise her pre-
rogative sovereign she hos fit restrain the
emigration of her subjects and has prescribed certain
forms to be observed before such emigration take
place. To the wilfu nracton of this INV she has afx
ed certain penalty, it may be in eyes, but
still which she has perfect right to inct We
not tell the which have influenced her in arriving
such conclusion, have any right to sit in udg
ment thereon 1t is sufficient know that in her eyes
unlawful emigration is great crime, and is punished
such Who shall say that therefore, the criminal is
longer her subject that in committing crime against
his countrys laws he is pso aoo dissoyng the tie which
united him to her. breaking the bond of his allegiance
and ncapacitatng her from the right to nct the pun
ishment? According to Mr.. Marcys doctrine, the muir
dcre the thief the forger who flies beyond her borders
escape the just punishment of Austrian laws because
he thereby becomes unlawful emgrant, imme
dately to be Austrian subject and his Government
loses the right to demand and to punish him. Its ward
ing off the penalties of crime by the actual commission of
the crime 1t makes the harborer of the criminal the de-
against which he has offended is not the legal rbu
nal try him that it has jurisdiction the per-
of the offender and worst Of ALL that the commits
sion of the very offence which renders him liable to
Indictment before it. has emancpated him from under its
control
Mr. Marcy then proceeds to discuss Kosztas opinion
of his citizenship, first casting doubt the charge
that he made any allegation of citizenship and then
arguing that if he did Importance to be attached
to it. His position in this respect might be granted in
abstract controversy between two nations upon the
subject of Kosztas citizenship, but in the condition of
affairs at Smyrna when the alleged declaration of citizen
ship on his part made, his allegations should
have been of the first importance in regulating the
duct Of the American officials and, in defending their
conduct Mr. Marcy should look at the circumstances
which had transpred at the time Of their alleged nsbe
havor rather than at subsequent which may have
given favorable turn to the opinions which would other
wise have been entertained Of them The American Con-
sui and Capt Ingraham at the time undoubtedly
violating the hospitality of neutral territory by threaten
Ing to commit belgerent acts while within that territory
they also threatening to engage in conflict with the
Government vessel of country at peace with the United
States For the commission of these acts they had
thority from the home Government, did they come
within the boundaries of their legal duties They had
ken this decided STEP however, they had stretched their
authority thus far in order to protect in Of
gency american etaen hut being asked nor proof
Of his citizenship, they fnd except declaration
Of has intention to become citizen. How could they say
from that slight proof that he entitled to American
protection? They had not at that time the advantages of
Mr.. Marcys able letter show that if he not ct
he was just good one they agree upon ask
ing Mr. Koszta whether he actually American not
But upon calling upon him declare whether heis Amc
rcan "a question: by the way which leading and there
fore should not have been putt he replies, No. am
Hungarian, and will live and die Hungarian Here is
declaration Of intention which, in Mr. Marcys mind, ought
be conclusive evidence of the of American autho
rity nasmuch it is similar ground that he bases
his argument in favor of that authority Surely if such
declaration made, it should have been conclusive
upon American officials, who had already overstepped
their authority by taking the law into their hands
instead of applying to the proper municipal authorities
for redress.
But Mr.. Marcy undertakes ingenious argument up
on this subject in defence of Koszta worthy of
lawyer than statesman. lie attempts to show that
Koszta might make such declaration and yet confess
himself an Austrian subject He (Mr. Marcy does not
attempt to draw distinction between citizen of Hun
gary and subject Of Austria Oh no but he says that
Kosza must have drawn the distinction in his mind
So did Kossuth, did hundreds Of other Hungarians
who have taken the oath Of allegiance, draw dis
tnction in their minds between Hungarian citizen
and Austrian subject That distinction was the very
vital principle of their socaed revolution Without their
establishing that distinction it would have been
vouton but rebellion against competent authority which
would completely deprive them of the hopes Of achieving
their independence long that distinction ceased to
exist But however nicely the distinction might have
been drawn in Hungarian minds to the representative Of
the American Government, Government which still re-
CARDS Hungary within the dominions and its citizens
subject to the control Of the Austrian Power the confess
sion of being Hungarian citizen should be the ac-
knowedgment of being Austrian subject. Neither Mr.
Brown Capt Ingraham, Mr. Marcy.had any thing to
do with Mr. Kosza's distinctions With them there Is no
difference between Hungarian and Austrian; and If
they seek establish distinction is at once recog-
milton Of hungarian independence and declaration Of
war againtt Austria.
After having established the points already referred to
to his satisfaction, Mr. Marcy announces that he i
brought by sound application of the principles Of law
that those who acted in behalf of Austria had no right to
seize and imprison Martin Koszta.
Against this conclusion though altogether in the
ers opinion unsupported by the facts and arguments
adduced would like to enter protest because VIC
think that the facts which Mr. Marcy himself has fur
nished 60 strongly to prove the contrary There be
no doubt but what the municipal authorities Of Austria
would hayo had the right to seize upon Koszta when
controlled by the presence Of foreign sovereignty by
her laws he is subject and subject who has committed
treason agnns, her Within her territory or upon the
open sea, where she would not infringe upon
eighty Of another independent nation, she would have
~. 80