Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1853-10-01

he stlll considers himself subject Of the EN-
pcror. In short, according to the terms OF
the Jaw OF the Union, such declaration, supposed
to nave been signed by koszta, and from which
Mr.. i,rown has pretended TO infer his naturaZa-
lion in the United States is not sufficient 10 pro-
ducc that effect. The undersigned thinks he may
dispense entering into any further details IN regard
10 this question: seeing that the department OF
State Of the United States constantly refuse 10
grant passports to individuals who lind themselves
in this category, and that official publications have
been made from time 10 time to that effect.
As there can be no doubt therefore, concerning
lhc.qucston Of nationality, the consul-scncral OF
the emperor at Smyrna was, without doubt, per
ir.t!y Justified Wlen III virtue OF those treaties,
which subject Austrian subjects in Turkey 10 con
sular J., l,rsdictio, lie seized the person OF koszta
within the pale of his jurisdiction.
Such being the case, the imperial government
trusts that the government OF the inued States
will hasten 10 instruct its consul al Smyrna not to
intcrpo>, any obstacle 10 the extradl,lon OF the
aforesaid koszta, by the onsul-gencral OF France
10 the onsugcncral OF Austria at Smyrna.
But. apart from this question Of jurisdiction. II
is especially the mode adopted by the functionarles
Of the United States in order to settle the matter,
which has given the imperial government the most
legitimate grounds OF complaint.
The AIT of violence which the commander OF the
sloop-Qt-war : ST. Louis" committed against the
Austrian brig ;. lluszar" real act OF war,
committed in full peace, in neutral port, the fatal
effects OF which We're only averted by the prudence
and moderation OF our rconsul-gencral at Smyrna
constitutes an outrage upon the principles Of the
law of nations and the imperial government has
no doubt but that this act, viewed IN such light,
will have been condemned by the government OF
the United States, said government being itself in
tercsted III preventing the repetition OF similar oc-
currences.
The events Of the % of July at Smyrna present
in two-fold point Of view serious deviation from
the rules OF International law.
lst. The commander of the United States sloop
of-war st. Louis" threatened that the brig OF
his Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty, the
"lIuszar' with u hostile attack by bringing his
guns to bear upon the latter, and by announcing
in writing that if certain individual detained on
board, whose nationality was being discussed be-
tween the agents of the two governments was
not delivered over to him at a stated hour, he
would 20 and take him by main force
There tan be no doubt but that the threat o
attacking by main force, vesscl-of-war belong
ing 10 the military marine Of a sovereign State,
whose flag she carries, is nothing else than threat
Of an act Of war. Now, the right of making war
is necessarily, and from the very nature OF that
right, inherent IN the sovereign power. right
Of SO ,nomento,,s nature" says Nattcl, (Law Of
Nations VOL ,, book 3, chap. L. 8 A. the right
OF Judging whether the nation has real grounds OF
complaint whether she is authorized to employ
force, onA jnwifabh IN taking up afms; " neither
prudence will admit Of such a step, and whether
say, can belong only to the body Of thc na-
t,on or to the sore,rign her representative II is
doubtless one Of those rights nHh0ut mh'ch there
cun he no sdlntary government, and which are
therefore called rights Of mujeay.
The founders Of the republic Of the United
States fully recognized, from the beginning OF the
Union the rights reserved TO the sovereign power.
The articles Of perpetual coniederacy and union
between the States Of New Hampshire, Massa-
chuselts, &c, Of ITS contain already the follow
ing stipulation uX, 4l)
.Thc right Of declaring war and to make peace
shall belong solely and exclusively to the Congress
OF the United States"
This basis Of the public law ofthe United States
was preserved and sanctioned by the Constitution
OF the United States, Of 1884, which reserves the
power OF declaring war explicitly to Congress,
(scr,iun IIllD .r
Upon this point. the Constitution OF the Inited
States harmonizes perfectly with the public law Of
Eurom.
But this right reserved 10 the supreme power
nicuch country would become usory and null.
il commanders Of naval forces others We're TO
be explicitly or tactly authorized TO undertake.
either Of their own accord, or upon the order or
with the consent OF diplomatic or consular agent
10 commit acts oi aggression and OF war against
the vessels or the troops OF another nation. with
out special instructions from the >nprc.n authority
OF their own country notified IN IN, z 'lns pre-
scrii,d by the law OF nations.
1t - impossible that the regular governments OF
the civilized world can wish to expose their au
tl,ory as we'll general peace. to the hazards
of hus,ilics commenced without their knowledge.
and without special authority from the sovereign
power l,y such or such tunruonary. in a foreign
land.
o,'lr This act OF hostility has been committed
in II neutral port Of power friendly To both ma
tion>
Certainly, il there be- point Of maritime and
international law which is clearly and positively
IA, md hDS hncn otp cd l,V
powers of the world il is the invloahlllty OF ncu
,rn ports. the absolute prohibition from committing
m s,l ii ports acts OF war and of violence. even
aga,.st the enemy with whom we arc nj open
war. Modern history furnishes hut few examples
OF cases OF this kind. One Of these rare instances
is the attack upon the Dutch East India fleet which
had taken shelter in the port OF Bcrgne. IN Norway
bv the amiral commanding the forces OF the enemy
and although hat attack was rcpnlscd by the guns
Of ihc fort OF that neutral port Inttckan authority
unIv,rSally recognised in matters relating to the
!aw of nalions--does nevertheless accuse the
neutral power (Dcnmark) Of having complained
IN too FAINT voice OF ;sn undertaking so injurious
10 her dignity and to her rights.
In order the better 10 establish the concurrence
Of all nations. and the unanimity of all exponn,-
cr> OF evil law this question, we quote the
authority ot an American statesman. The follow
ing is the opinion of Mr., Henry Wheaton: The
right. oi war says he, (Ecn,cmts Of International
Law part iv. chap, III, ! II "can be- exercised
only within the territory OF the bcllgcrcn powers.
upon the high seas. in a territory belonging to
no ono. Hence il follows that hostilitirs cannot
lawfully be exercised within the territorial ,,ri>-
dictiou of the neutral State which is the common
friend OF both parties" Then, .: Not only are
all captures made by the bclligcrcnt cruisers vii h.
in the limits OF this jurisdiction absolutely illegal
and void. hut captures made hy armed vessels
stationed in bay or river, or in the mouth OF a
river. or in the harbor of neutral state, for the
purpose OF exercising the rights Of war from this
station. arc also invalid. Thus where lsrit,>I,
prvatccr stationed itself within the river Missl>-
sppi in the neutral territory of the United states
for the purpose of exercising the right Of war from
the river, by standing of and on, obtaining nor-
nation at the Bazc, and ovcrhaung vessels in
their course down the river, and made the cap
,urc in question within three English miles Of the
aluvial islands formed AT its mouth restitution of
the captured vessel was dccrced by Sir w. Scott.
So also. where helligerent ship. lying within
neutral territory made a capture with her boats
ont Of the neutral territory, the capture was held
10 be- invalid for though the hostile force c,n.
poycd was applied to the captured vessel lying
ont OF the territory. yet no such use Of a neutral
territory tor the purpose OF war is 10 be permit.
ted"
II a hostility against an enemy declared TO lie