The miners' express. (Dubuque, Iowa) 1849-1854, 1853-10-12

all doubt on this subject, q certified copy
OF tina. record il annexed to this communica-
ton.
1t is not commended that this imitiatory step in
the Process OF naturalization invested him with
all the civil rights Of an American citizen; but il
is sufficient for all the purposes Of this case 4
! show that he was clothed with an American ma
tionaty; and in virtue thereof, the government
of the United States was authorized 10 exsent
to him its protection, at home and abroad Mr.
Hulsemann, as the undersigned believes, fall.
, into great error-an error fatal 10 some Of hi
most important conclusons-by assuming tina
: nation can properly ex'end its protection onl,
10 native-born naturaZed Citizens. This i
not the doctrine Of in irrational law, nor is th,
practice OF nations circunscribed within sucl
narrow limits. This law does not, as has be, 1
: before remarked compicate questions Of THU
nature by respect for municp pal codes. In rea.
ton to this subject, it has clear and distinc
rules OF lis own. 1t gives the national charac
ter OF the country not only to native born ant
naturallzed citizens, but to all residents in i
, who are there with, even without, an inten-
ton to become citizens, provided they have a
domcht ereln. Foreigners may, and often do
acquire domicil IN country, even though they
nave entered 1t with The avowed intention not t.
become na'urazed citizens, but 10 return t.
their native land at some remote and uncertain
p Rod; and whenever they acquire domcil
International law at once impresses upon them
the national character Of the country Of tina
dom'cll. 1t Is maxim of international law
that domci coniers a national character; il
does not allow any one who has domicil 10
decline the national character thus conferred; il
forces it upon him often very much against his
will, and to his great detriment. International
law looks only 10 the national character in de-
| fermning what country has the right to protect
II person goes from this country abroad, with
the nationality of the United States, this law en-
joins upon other nations to respect him, in re
gard TO protection, as an American ciz n IL
comedies to every country the right to protec
any and all who may be clothed with its nation
atty. These are important principles in their
bearings upon the questions presented in Mr.
Hulsemanns note, and too obvious to be
contested; but as they are opposed to some of
The positions taken by Austria, the unders igned
deems 1t respectful in such case to sustain
them by reference to authorities.
The position is a clear one, that if a person
goes int'a foreign country, and engages in
trade there, he is, by the law Of nations, to be
considered a merchant Of that country, and
subject ia all civil purposes, whether that
fcoQntry be hostile or neutral" Il Kent Com,
75.)
| ASotu' TIC Suuc uutUOTIy says Iudt iii
| law OF nations, as to Europe, the rule, is that
men take their national character from the
general character of the country in which they
reside" Il bid ,75)
| 1t koszta ever had domicil in the United
States, he was in virtue thereof invested with
the nationality Of this country, and in this char.
acter continued as long as hat domicil was re-
tanned. There are cases in which it is difficult
to settle the question of domicil; but that of
| koszta is not one of them.
The most approved definitions OF domicil
are the following: "a residence at particular
place, accompanied with positive or presump-
tive proof OF continuing there for an unlimited
time. ID Binney's Reports, 349.) "lfit suffi-
cien,ly appear that the intention Of removing
was to.make a permanent settlement, or for an
indefinite time, the right Of domicil is acquired
by residence of a few days. The Venus, 8
| Cranch, 279 "Vatel has defined domicil to be
a fixed residence in any place, with an intention
of always staying there. But this is not an ac-
curate statement. 1t would be more correct to
say that that place is properly the domicil Of
person in which his habtation is fixed, without
any present intention of removing therefrom /"
-(Storys Con. of Laws, s 43) IA person who
removes to foreign country, settles himself
there, and engages iu the trade of the country,
furnishes by these acts such evidence of an in
tention permanently to reside there, as to stamp
him with the national character Of the State
where he resides" (The Venus, 8 Cranch,
279)
| Apply to these principle to the case under
consideration, and the inevitable result 10 that
Koszta had domicil in the United States He
came to and resided in this country one year
and eleven months. He came here with the
intention of making il his future abode This
intention was manifested in several ways, but
most significantly by his solemn declaration up
on oath There can be no better evidence Of
his design of making the United States his fu-
| ture home than such declaration; and to this
kind Of evidence of the intention, the ind:s-
pensable element Of true domicil, civilians have
always attached Importance. (Phliimore,
1852 In the case OF Koszta, we have all that
is required t. prove he had domci in the I'm
| tied 5 .ates-the occurrence Of an actual resi-
dence with the intention to make this country
| his future home.
The establishment Of his domicil here invest
ed him with the national character of this coun-
try, and with that character he acquired the
| tight 10 claim protection from the u. States,
and they had the RICH; TO extend it to him as
lonr as that character continued.
| The next question is, was Koszta clothed with
that character when he was kidnapped in the
streets of Smyrna, and imprisoned on board of
the Austrian brig-of war Huszar? The nation
| dt dCQuTeu ny IeSlQeDCe TeI1dl0S as
| long the domicil continues, and that co.itin-
ues not only as long as the domicled person
continues in the country of his residence, but
until he acquires new domicil The law as
to the continuance and change Of domicil is
clearly stated in the following quotation from
an eminent jurist:
However, in many cases actual resA nee is
indus p .nsable retain domicil after it is
once acquired; but il is retained amino solo, by
| the mere intention not to change it, or to adopt
another. 1t, therefore, person leaves his
| home for temporary purposes, but with an in
| tcnton to return TO it, this change Of place is
not in law change of domicil. Thus, if a
person should go on voyage to sea, or TO for
eign country, for health or for pleasure, or for
business Of a temporary nature, with an inten-
ton to return, such transitory residence would
not constitute new domcl, amount to an
abandonment of the old one; for it is not the
mere act of inhabitancy in place which makes
it the domicil, but it is the fact. coupled with
the intention Of remaining there, amino ma
nendi." (Story's Con. of Laws, S44)
At the very last session of the Supreme Court
Of the United States, a case came for adjudi-
cation, presenting question as TO the domcil
of General Kosciusxo al the time of his DEATH
The decision, which was concurred in by all
the judges on the bench, fully, for the correct
| "eeS w 'Ao o'eso'S PioPVo'io"S >" iCSd'u "
domicil, particularly the two most important in
Koszta's case first, that he acquired domicil
in the United States: and, second, that he did
not lose it by his absence in Turkey. IA How
ards Reports s. &. U. s., 400)
As the national character, according to the
law of naiions depends upon tine domiciI, it
remains as long as the domc is retained, and
is changed with it. Koszta was, therefore,
vested with the nationality Of an American cil-
zen at Smyrna, if he, in contemplation of law,
had domicil in the United States. The au.
thorities already referred to show that TO lose
domicil when once obtained, the domciled per.
son must leave the country Of his residence with
! the inte alton to abandon that residence, and
must acquire a domicil in another. Both of
these facts are necessary to effect change Of
domicll; but neither of them exists in Koszta's
case The facts show that he was only tempo.
rarity absent from this country on private bust
ness, with no intention Of remaining perma.
nen,y in Turkey, but, on the contrary, was at
the time Of his seizure awaiting an opportunity
| to re urn to the United States.
| Whenever, by the operation Of the law Of
] ma tions an individual becomes clothed with