The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1853-10-06
NO. 353.


m mSn' communication Why are the dates OF
Iana treaties withheld What is still more
. .u,o why is not the language conveying
.L;p authority quotedl The undersigned is con-
'na;ned for reasons he will briefly assign, to
,assliop the accuracy Of the Interpretation
mich derives the right claimed in the above
paragraph from any existing treaty between
I,stria and the Ottoman Porte.
The Austrian lnternuncio at Constantinople,
n a conference with MIR Marsh, the American
Minister Resident, spoke of such right as de-
lived from ancient capituations by treaty
and usage IL is not shown or alleged that
new treaty stipulations since lS49 have been
entered into by Turkey and Austria The San
cent capitulations" were relied on to support
the demand in that year for the Surrender OF the
Hungarian refugees; they were scrus'n'Hed,
and no such authority as is now claimed was
found in them. The French and English MIN
i,ers at ConstantinOple who advised ana sus.
tiaed the Sultan in resisting the demand Oh
ilstria for their extradition, would not nave
,1en such advice if they could have found IN
eIisting treaties any authority Tor thas demand
or any obligation on the part OF the sultan 10
weld 10 it, Lord Paimerston, then her Britain
mic Majesty's Principal Secretary OF State ior
Fora;,n Affairs, carefully examined these trea-
49, and expressed his conclusions thereon in
letter TO Sir Stratford Canning, dated cath
Santamber. 1919 In this letter, which con-
famed an extract from one of these treaties
that of Belgrade--and referred to the claims Of
Austria. founded on them, for the surrender of
these refugees, he says "The utmost that
could be demanded would be that they the
refugees should not be allowed 10 reside per
oonSatlu in the Turkish Empire"
| Coming down to q later periodic the very
transaction at Smyrna--abundant reasons are
fund for DENYING that Turkey was then under
aoy treaty obligation to deliver Rosetta to Aus
t,is or that her Consul General had authority
10 seize him. On this subject it is allowable to
resort to the declarations of the public men of
the Porte as evidence in regard to an issue of
this kind. Their explicit denial may be fairly
considered as equivalent to Austria's afhrma-
ton without proof, where proof, if it existed,
could be so easily adduced.
In a despatch to this Government of the 4th
Of August, 1883 Mr.. Marsh, the American
Minister Resident at Constantinople, says:
81 have had several conversations on this
subject with the Minister of Foreign Affairs
and with Aali Paoha Governor of Smyrna at
the time the affair took place These distin-
guished persons are very far from expressing
any dissatisfaction with the course pursued by
taken of the legal character Of the question,
and Aali Pacha informs me that few years
since the Austrian Government refused to sur
render to the Porte Turkish rebels who had
fled into Austria, on the very ground now taken
BY the Porte--namely that the treaties did not
provide for the extradition of political offend
ersD
Mr. Brown, the Charge d'Affaires dd interim,
of the United States N Constantinople, writes,
that in an interview with Chehil Efndi, also o
Turkish officer of high rank and great expe-
rience, in which the affair at Smyrna was dis
cussed he observed that "the Austrian Gov
eminent does not possess the power by treaty
to arrest any one on Ottoman soil for political
offences" There is now however, something
more decisive from Turkey than the opinion Of
her public men in opposition to this treaty claim
of Austria The Government of the Porte has
pronounced judgment in relation to the sell
cure of Koszta, which Austria herself is bound
to respect. II has protested against the con-
duet of the Austrian agents in that affair as
unlawful, and violation of its sovereignty but
not one word of complaint not a murmur of
dissatisfaction, from Turkey, against the con-
duet Of the funetionaries of the United States
OF Smyrna, has yet reached this Government
This is certainly an anomalous case Austria
arraigns the United States for violating the
rights of Turkey 10 the Koszta affair: Turkey.
the offended party, exoner ates the United States,
and protests against Austria, our accuser, for
the very same offence.
These considerations have led the undersign-
ed as he believes they will lead all others who
duly reflect on them TO the confident conclu-
sion that there exist no treaties between Aus
trla and Turkey which could justify, or in any
way countenance, the seizure or imprisonment
OF kOszta by the Austrian functiOnaries.
But If Austria really has such authority by
treaties as she now claims, it confessedly ex-
tends only to Austrian subjects" Ii could
not therefore, be applied to Koszta, unless he
was such q subject at the time he was seized
Ii the question of his nationality s to be settled
by International law, the only code which fur
nahes the rules by which this question is to be
determined, there is no good reason for adjudg-
lng him to have been, when seized at Smyrna,
an Austrian subject But settle this question rs
Austria would have it settled by an appeal to
her own civil code, the result will be the same
BY the consent and procurement Of the En-
perOr OF Austria, koszta has been sent into per-
petual Punishment The Emperor was a par
~ 10 the expulsion of the Hungarian refugees
rom Turkey. The sovereign by such an act
uepr'es hls subjects to whom it is applied of
al heir rights under his Government He
places them where he cannot, If he would af-
nfd them protection. BY such an act he re-
leases The subjects thus banished from the bond
Oh allegiance Any other result would make
sae political connection between the subject
aud the sovereign a state of unmitgated vassal.
age in which all the duties and no rights would
be On one side, and all the rights and no duties
would be on the other. Koszta must be regard
ed as having been banithed by Austria for he
was one Of the Hungarian refugees whom she
procured to be expelled from Turkey in 1851.
They were released from confinement at kuta-
INA on condition Of submitting to perpetual ban
Ehment and she had two persons present at
TIER departure "who claimed and obtained
taere an active share in the arrangements. y
hotla could never thereafter be rightfully de.
manded as an Austrian subject.
me Proposition that Koszta at Smyrna was
no' an Austrian subject can be sustained ON
another ground. By decree of the Emperor
o. AUSTRIA Of the cath Of March, 1892, Aus
TRAN subjects leaving the domnions of the En-.
pefCr without permission Of the magistrate and
release of Austrian citizenship, and with an
Intention never to return, become "uniaacfui
'mlgrGnts" and lose all their civil and political
nights at home--(Enc Amer, Tit. Emigration,
henis Com, so, 81
hOszta had left Austria without permission,
and with the obvious and ayowed intention
never to return he was, therefore, within the
sulct meaning of the Imperial decree, an IN
awful emigrant" He had incurred and paid
Tue y, penalty Of that offence by the loss Of all
ns clyll and political rights. If he had prop
cry, 1t had escheated, and he was reduced TO
STATE worse than absolute aliensge; for ssaens
nave, by right, the benefit Of the civil laws for
protection, in whatever country they may be.
oTpped by this Imperial decree of civil and
political rights, Koszta had, in Austria, no re-
uteSs Tor PERSONAL wrongs, and abroad he had
~ claim to protection from the Government
WA would still bold him az q subject He