The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1853-10-06

countries, might come TO the United States
with view to acquire claim to their pro-
/ lection, and then to return to their former
scenes OF action TO cary on, under a changed
national character, their Interior designs with
/ greater security aud be ter success. This APP
! prehension is believed to be wholly unfounded.
| The first distinct act done by them towards
the accomplishment of these designs would dis
close their fraudulent purpose In coming TO
and seeking domicil in tins country. Such
a development would effectually disprove the
| fact that they acquired domieil here and
with il our nationality. Without that nation.
atty they could not be considered as standing
under the protecting arm Of the United States,
| and consequently could have no right to claim,
aud no reason to expect it would be exerted in
their defence. Their fraudulent intent would
defeat all they could hope to gain by resi-
dence in this country and by insncerely pro-
/ Tossing to make it their home
The intention entertained IN good faith TO
make it such a home would be wanting aud
without such an intention neither domicil nor
nationality can he acquired. This considera-
ton should dispel all suspicious that this doc.
trine rs to nationality and protection will not
be as safely used and as well guarded from
abuse by the United States AZ it has been in
times past, or may be in the future by any
other sovereign Power. There is nothing in
the doctrine herein maintained or in the
history of this Government, to awaken the
slightest apprehension that it is 10 any way
inclined to extend the shield of its protection
over adventurers or seditious propagandists,
who may 90 from this to other countries TO en-
gage in enterprises designed to interfere with
their political institutions or disturb their in
ternal quiet. The liberal policy of the United
States in regard to receiving immigrants from
all nations, and extending to them the adyan-
tages of their free institutions, makes it an
act of justice on their part to maintain the
right OF national protection to the full extent
authorized by the law of nations, and to resist
with firmness any attempt to impose new re
strictions upon it,
There is another view of this case, which
places the conduct Of the agents of this Gov
eminent at Smyrna upon equally defensible
grounds. The American Consul there, and
the American Legation at COnstsntinople,
acted with great caution in relation to Koszta' 3
claim to be regarded as entitled to the protec-
ton of this Government As his naturaliza-
ton had not been perfected, they hesitated at
first to receive him under their protection but
the facts show that they ultimately yielded to
|
kereh-in effect certifcate-that the person
to whom it is given is cared for and received
under the protection of the Government whose
agent has granted it.
By the laws of Turkey and other Eastern
nations the consulates therein may receive
under their protection strangers and sojourners
whose religion and social manners do not as
simulate with the religion and manners of those
| cauntries Tho paraoua thua racaivad bacnr,e
thereby invested with the nationality of the
protecting consulate These consulates, and
other European establishments in the East, are
in the constant habit of opening their doors
} for the reception of such inmates, who are re-
ceved irrespective of the country of their birth
or allegiance. 1t is not uncommon for them
, to have large number of such protegeS. ln.
ternational law recognises and sanctions the
rights acquiesced by this connection.
In the 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 and this rule applies equally to
America. But in Asia and Africa an immisci.
, BILE character is kept up and Europeans ira
ding under the protection of a factory take
their national character from the establishment
under which they live and trade. This rule
applies to those parts of the world from obvious
reasons of policy, because foreigners are not
admitted there, as in Europe and the Western
part of the world, into the general body anG
mass of the society Of the nation, but they con.
tinue strangers and sojourners, not acquiring
any national character under the general sov
ereignty of the country" Il Kents Comment
aries, 1873
The Lords of Appeals in the High Court o.
Admiralty in England decided i'm 1854, that 9
merchant carrying on trade MT Smyrna, under
the protection of a Dutch Consul, was to b.
considered a Dutchman as to HIS national char
z acter. (Wheaton's Inter Law, 3s4; Rob
Adm. Reports, l2)
{ This decision has been examined and az
h proved by the eminent jurists who have sine
r written treatises on international law
is According to the principle established in thi
j. case, koszta was invested with the nationalit
IT of the United States, if he had it not before
n the moment he was under the protection of tn
American Consul at Smyrna and the American
2 Legation at Constantinople That he was ~
a received is established by the Tezkereh the,
: gave him, and the efforts they made for his re
Q lease. The Charge dAffaires ad interim Of tn
United States at Constantinople, in letter o
: the 10th of June, addressed to the Imperial In
: ternuncio states
!, 1t was on presenting this declaration of al
Y legiance to the Consulate OF the United State
! of America at Smyrna, and to this Legation
/ that the said Koszta was furnished with
, Teekereh to come to Constantinople and to re
r turn to Smyrna, whence he was to start 70
3 New York. Since his arrival in Turkey he ha
g resided under the protection of my Govern
0 ment, and it is a pleasure to me to be able Il
| state that his conduct has always been IRE
proachableo
. Having been received under the protection
, Of these American establishments, he hsC
thereby acquired, according to the law of ma
, tons, their nationality; and when wronget
3 and outraged as he was they might interpos'
for his liberation, and Capt. lngraham had q
) right to cooperate with them for the accom-
| plishment of that object The exceptions Ia
ken to the manner Of that cooperation remain
to be considered
In relation to the department of the Amer
can agents towards Mr. Weckbecker. the Aus
trian Consul General the undersigned cannot
conceive that there can be any ground of com
plant. Nothing done to or with him, by Mr.
Obey our Consul at Smyrna, can possibly i'm.
ply disrespect to the Emperor Of Austria. Mel
ther in his private character, nor as O function.
airy Of the Austrian Government, did Mr.
Weskbecker take an open or an avowed part
in the opening scene Of the outrage. His agen-
cy in that affair at its commencement was clan
destine. This course implied consciousness
on his part that the act was ndefensible. The
fact that he sought the aid Of the civil author.
ity OF Turkey to get Koszta into bis possession,
pr0ves that he knew the mode he resOrted 10
for that purpose was illegal. The application
OF MIR. OHley to him to assist in and consent to
Kosztas release was certainly no offence, and
implied no disrespect either to him or his Gov
eminent
The appeal Of Mr.. Brown to Capt. Ingraham
10 interpose for the liberation OF Koszta, and
bis advice to effect it in the way it was done,
must be regarded not only as proper but praise
worthy acts provided Capt Ingraham's con-
duet can be indicated The Justification of