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

cited for the of the other The one Is an ac
performed in compliance with the dictates OF humanity
the other is ansgresson of municipal law when can
rather for punishment than favor.
But even admitting that the Of Koszta now an'
the ease of the Hungarian refugee then were identcai
Mr. Marcy has grounds for asserting that this cas-
was decided against the right of Austria 10 mn
extradton either under the law OF nations OF py es'
ing treaty tpulationsn 1t was indeed decided that BY
the treaty stipuatons between the two nations Austr
could only call for their perpetual banishment from Tur
hut the rcst Of the sentence Of those seeming
y true actually false assertions, rather deductions
which form q great part of Mr.. Marcys argument Had
he said il was decided in favo of the right of Turkey
to refuse his extradton under The law OF nations, the
assertion would perfectly correot but ~ wal
decided against the right Of Austria to require MI
extradition Every nation has right to demand thai
against its laws delivered up, though 1t rests
in the discretion Of the nation Of whom the demand
made whether they shall comply with it or not It has
been held by many of the most able writer's upon public
law that it is the duty of one nation deliver up
another with whom it is peace criminals against h
laws who have taken refuge within its territories but
though the practice Of nations has overrued their opn
ion still there is nothing to show that the nation Of
which the offender is subject loses its right to require
his exradition that refusal to deliver him is not
sufficient cause of If you view it by the princi
pies of the old law the nation has property in
the man. and necessary consequence has the right to
demand and force delivery of its property II, on the
other hand you regard civil government as do the civil
ians contract between the people community
and each Individual of the people separately by which
certain duties to be performed and certain penalties
to be awarded for their nonperformance the party
has undoubted right to demand the surrender of the
who has violated the contract that he may undergo
the penalties which he has incurred and to force
when any other Powers interfere to prevent the ufment
Of the articles of the agreement View the subject in
either light property or as contracting party the
result is still the same and thus, though Turkey by
prescription and in the exercise of her independent
eregnty may have the right to resist the demand of Aus
tra for the delivery of fugitive still the latter Govern
has the right to make that demand and in case of
refusal to force delivery In Europe, where the
rumor of conflict between two of its members disurbs
the commercial harmony and prosperity of the whole
continent and where success upon either side might
serve to destroy the balance of power among the nations
the principle of sefpreservaon obges the other SOW
eregnes to interfere and que the disturbance and this
interference is generally in favor Of the weaker against
the stronger Power The fact that force therefore, has
seldom been resorted to to compel the extradon of fu
gves is proof that the country to which they belong
has lost the right require it. As the stands
the result to be this Austria by the principles Of
international law has the right to the possession and
custody criminal SUBJECTS Turkey has, by prescription
the her Independent sovereignty unless
restrained by express treaty tpnlatons, the right to
fuse their surrender The right Of appealing to the
derer raiso des rois lies merged in regard to the
and prosperity of Europe Austria has then the right
the possession Of her rebelious citizens subject to Tur
keys right Of sovereignty them while within her u
rsdction
But after showing that there treaty stipula
tons by which Turkey authorized Austria to seize upon
her Hungarian refugees, Mr. Marcy goes TO another
view of the question He says, if Austria has such au
hority it confessedy extends only to Austrian subjects
and then attempts show that Kosza is not Austrian
subject lie gives us two lines of argument upon this
subject which certainly not only peculiar but anus
ing First, he says:
"By the consent and procurement Of the Emperor Of
Austria Koszta has been sent perpetual Punishment
The Emperor party TO the expulsion Of the Hun
garan refugees from Turkey The sovereign by such an
act deprves his subjects to whom is applied OF oil their
rights under his Government lie places them where he
cannot If he would, afford them protection. by such
he releases the subjects thus banished from the
bond of allegiance Any other result would make the po
ca connexion between the subject aud the sovereign
state unmgated vassaage in which all the duties and
rights would be side, and oil the rights and nc
duties would be the other Kosza must be regarded
having been banished by Austria; for he was one O
led from Turkey in 1851 They were released from
fnement Mt Kuahia condition Of submitting to perpet
ua banshmen and she had two persons present at he
departure who claimed and obtained there ACTIVE
share in the arrangements Koszta could never there
after be rightfuly demanded Austrian subject.
Now, Mr.. Marcy, how, in the Of all the gods q
once do you contrve to make that out How was th
expulsion Of the Hungarian refugees from Turkey ban
ishment Of them from Austria. The Emperor con
sened or procured have them banshcd from their
tive land he wanted them back he begged Turkey h
entreated Turkey, almost went to with Turkey be
cause she would not let him have them back and he
ly insisted when he found Turkey hard-hearted no
to grant his request that she should be allowed
keep them herself No, no the Hungarian refugee
were never banished from their mother country and
they to return to-day would be admitted to the privileges
and subject 10 the penalties Of Austrian a0s. There hn
been no dissolution by the Emperor Of their native ale
glance he has been only strenuous in maintaining it
and the writer thinks that this is the first instance Ehcr
was ever sought to be established that banishmcn from
Turkey means Punishment from Austria.
However, Mr. Marcy's resources do not fail here. III
goes to say
.sThe proposition that Kosza at Smyrna was not al
Austrian subject be sustained another ground
by decree Of the Emperor Of Austria Of the 9th
March, 1882, Austrian subjects leaving the domnions
the Emperor without permission of the magistrate and
release Of Austrian citizenship, and with intention
yer TO return become lawuI emigraats, and lose al
their civil and political rights at home Ency. Amer
Tit Emigration, Kents Com, so, 6l
Koszta had left Austria without permission and Will
the obvious aud avowed intention return he was
therefore within the strict meaning of the imperial de
cree an unlawful emgrant.' He had incurred ant
no the penalty Of that offence by the loss of oil his cvi
and political rights If he had properly it had escheat
4 Al