Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1853-10-08


pthe claims Of austria founded Them the surrender
these refugees he utmost could DC demand
to reside pe,nsaasatig in the Turkish empire
Coming down to Later the very a.
KEW was them under ans treaty. Obligation to deliver
to Austria had to seize
rtions of the public men Of the Porte evidence
issue of this kind Their denial may pc iar
proof where proof if it existed could be easily adduced
despatch to to this Of the sa o
have had several conversations on this subject with
Minister of Foreign Affairs and with Aa Paca Governor
of SMYRNA at affair took place. These stin
guished persons very far from expressing any dssat
the legation has taken of the legal character of the
question: and Aa Pacha informs that few since
the Austrian government refused surrender to the Porte
Turkish rebels who had fed into Austria the ground
provide for the extradition Of political offenders"
Mr. Brown the Charge a@ interim OF the United
Chehil Effnd also Turkish officer of high rank and
3D. he observed the Austrian does
sess the power by treaty to arrest any one on soil
decisive from Turkey than the opinion of her public
opposition this treatclaim Of Austria The gov
t tine Seizure Of &oszta Austria bound
It. has protested against the eGnp? Of the Aus u.s.
sovereignty but not word of complaint not murmur
unctonares of the United States smyrna yet
ed this government This is certainly anomalous CASE
of Turkey Kosza affair; Turkey the offended party,
exoneraes the United States and protests against Austria
These considerations have led the undersigned he be-
lieves they will lead all others who duly reflect them to
the confident that there exist treaties between
Austria and Turkey which could justify any way
enance the seizure Imprisonment of koszta by the Amer
But if really has such authority by treaties she
iects It could therefore be applied to Kosza unless
he such subject at the time he seized If the
law the only which furnishes the rules by which this
iudp m to heen Nhen at
tran subject But settle this question, Austria would
have it settled by appeal to her own civil the result
By the consent procurement of the Emperor of Aus
Emperor was party expulsion of the Hungarian ref
pgees from Turkey The sovereign by such an depryes
his government He places them where he cannot if he
the subjects thus from the bond of allegiance Any
other result would make the political connection between the
in which all the duties and rights would be side
and all the rights and no duties would be the other
tra; for he of the Hungarian refugees she
procured to be expelled from Turkey in 1851. They
hitting perpetual bansment and she had two persons
present their departure claimed and obtained there
active share in the arrangements Koszta could
thereafter be rghtf9y demanded Austrian subject
trian subject be sustained another ground By
decree of the Emperor of Austria of the oath of March,
without permission of the magistrate and release
Austrian and with intention return,
political rights at home-(E ncy. Amer Tit. Emigration
kent's Com. so, sly
had left Austria without permission and with the
obvious and avowed intention never to return he
therefore, within the STRICT meaning of the imperial decree
penalty of that offence by the loss of all his civil and polt
state ne Rna 9ad a snd and he
have by right the benefit of the civil laws for protection
decree of civil and political rights K6sza had Austria
redress for personal wrongs and abroad he had claim
as subject. He was, in regard to Austria outlaw.
What right sovereign have to the allegiance of
nv
have been the very object of the Austrian decree to dis
solve the previous political connection between the uniaw
dissolved.
Some Importance seems to be attached to Kosztas own
opinion of his citizenship The note of Mr. Husemann
the impression though it does not contain the
Emperor The passage when closely
ined shows that the alleged acknowledgment is only
this subject the following "The very declaration
CONSUL Sn and the of the St. LOUIS
shows that he still considered himself subject of the
inference given but it is undoubtedly the response
Kosza reported have made when INTERCEPTED to his
live and die Hungarian" Mr. Brown, the Charge DAT
flares al interim of the United States at Constantnope who
Smyrna any time during the transaction i'll
aon to Kosz stated in a4etter to Baron de Brck
who was present as Mr Husemann states when Koszta was
examined and made the declaration imputed him, says,
asfonished by Mr. Browns letter Koszta
declared himself first interview Hungarian did
Kosza used any such language Should it, however,
be admitted that make that declaration,
it cannot be fairly understood to imply acknowledgment
that he then subject of the Emperor of Austria To
apprehend rightly what he meant by such declaration
to consider his situation, his known sentiments
and his antecedents. In his mind things could
probably be distinct from each other than Austria and
Hungary One object of his averson-the other
object OF his love- His affections clustered land
of his BIRTH and the intense thought
that country had been cruelty wronge and he knew
unfortunate In his visions of the future he happier
destiny for Hungary He her standing proudly among
the independent nations of the EARTH under clement gov
eminent emanatng from the Will of the people, and dedca
ting its authority to their general welfare In
the fallen condition of Hungary he thought base to dis
His situation when this declaration supposed have
made is also to be regarded in interpreting his words He
in the hands of Austrian agents. loaded with fetters
and warned of his doom by the knowledge of the sad
ororn condition he could have intended by the lam
ascrbed to him, to acknowledge unbroken tie
which then bound him to the Emperor of Austria.
The undersigned is brought by fair application of sound
of law and by careful consideration of the facts
to this important conclusonhat those who acted in
half Austria had right whatever seize and imprson
Martin Koszta-
1t will be conceded that the civil authority of Turkey
ring the whole period the at Smyrna
man and in called into action. Under these
cumstances-Ausra without any anthoriy-Turkey
csng noneand the American functonaries
serts having right in behalf of their government
terere in the affair." proposition which will be hereafter
contested then the condition of the parties
the COMMENCEMENT the outrage and through its whole
progress They ALL this view of the case without
the immediate and controlling direction of civil
international law in regard to the of Koszta The
Greek hirengs Rosetta their victim and the Austrian and
same condition at Smyrna respect to rights and duties
far regards that transaction they would
if it had occurred in their
ed region lying far beyond the confines of any sovereign
H.