New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1853-10-07

this case, but international law furnishes the
rules for correct decision, and by the light
from this source shed upon the transaction al
Smyrna are it's true features to be discerned.
Koszta being beyond the jurisdiction Of Aus
tria, her laws were entirely imperative in his
case, unless the Sultan Of Turkey has consented
to give them vigor within bis dominions by treaty
stipulations. The law of nations has rules Of
its own ON the subject of allegiance, and dsre-
CARDS generally all restrictions imposed upon il
by municipal codes.
This is rendered most evident by the proceed
log. Of independent States in relation TO extra.
uluon. No State can demand from any other,
90 Ha.'se Of right, the surrender Of native
porh OF natu'slized citizen or subject, an emi-
grant or even aegitive from justice, unless the
uemanq Is autncr1zed by express treaty stipula-
ton. International ksw allows no sucb claim
though comfy may somerxnes Weld what right
withholds To surrender yolit;cal ofFsndsrs
land in this class Austria places Koszta) is not
duty; but, on the contrary, coDisliance with
such a demand would be considered aisbonor.
able subserviency to foreign power, and an
act meriting the reprobation Of mankind"
As rendering needless all further controversy
on this point, Mr.. Marcy recalls to Mr.. Hulse-
mans recollection, the events of 1s49 and 1850
in relation to the reclamation Of Polish refugees
in Turkey by Russia, and of Hungarians Of
whom Koszta was one) by Austria. These de-
mands, he shows, were refused by Turkey, and
both Russia and Austria submitted to the refu-
sal, and neither ever imputed to Turkey viola
ton of their rights To show that the same
claims to rights now set up by Austria were re-
pudiated in 1S49 and 1850, he refers to the CO.
temporaneous views of eminent statesmen, and
to the concurrence of the governments Of Europe
among which the question was discussed and de-
cided against Austria. Mr.. Marcy expresses
his regret .'thst this claim for the surrender OF
Koszta and his companion, so fully considered
then and so signally overruled, should be again
revived by Austria under circumstances which
make the United States reluctant party in tn,
controversy. The claim has been repudiated by
the general judgment of Europe, and this gov
ernment is unable to discover any sufficieni
reason for dissenting from that decision.
Mr.. Marcy denies that Turkey was under any
treaty obligations to deliver Koszta to Austria
or that her Consul General had right to seize
him; and this, Notwithstanding the inferentia
declaration of Mr. Hulsemann to the contrary
In support of this he resorts to the declaration
of the public men of the Porte, and says
'' Their explicit denial may be fairly considered
as equivalent to Austrias affirmation without
proof where proof, if it existed, could be Sc
easily adduced."
These considerations, says Mr.. Marcy, have
led him, as he believes they will lead all Others
who duly reflect on them, to the confident con-
clusion that there exist no treaties between
Austria and Turkey which could justify, or in
any way countenance, the Seizure or imprison
ment of Koszta by the Austrian functionaries' .
But if Austria really has such authority by
treaties as she now claims" Mr.. Marcy contend'
''that it confessedly extends only to Austrian
subjects" and it could not apply to Koszta un.
| less he was such subject at the time he wa.
seized.
Mr.. Marcy next proceeds to discuss the ques
ton whether Koszta was a subject of Austrii
at the time he was seized. After detailing tn,
manner in which the Hungarian refugees wer,
expelled from Turkey land among them Koszta
of Austria, he argues thus
By the consent and procurement of the En-
peror of Austria, Koszta had been sent into per
petual Punishment The Emperor was part
to the expulsion of the Hungarian refuge,
! from Turkey. The sovereign by such an a.
deprives his subjects to whom it is applied of a
their rights under his Government. He plac
! them where he cannot, if he would, afford the
protection. By such an act he releases the sui
jects thus banished from the bond of allegianc
Any other result would make the political col
nection between the subject and the sovereign
state of unmitigated vassalage, in which all tt
duties and no rights would be on one side, an
all the rights and no duties on the other. Koszt
must be regarded as having been banished b
Austria for he was one of the Hungarian re
fugees whom she procured to be expelled fror
Turkey in 1851. They were released from con
| finement at Kutahia on condition of submttin
to perpetual banishment, and she had two per
sons present at their departure " who elaine,
| and obtained there an active share in the ar
rangements." Koszta could never thereafte
be rightfully demanded as an Austrian subject
Another ground he urges why Koszta a
Smyrna was not an Austrian subject. 1t i
this:
By decree of the Emperor of Austria of th
Oath of March, 1882, Austrian subjects leaving
the dominions Of the Emperor without permis
sion Of the magistrate and release of Austrian
citizenship, and with an intention never to re
turn, become tunlawful emigrants," and los
all their civil and political rights at home
(Ency. Amer. Tit. Emigration, 2 Kents Com
SO, 51.)
Koszta had left Austria without permission
and with the obvious and avowed intention
never to return; he was, therefore, within tn
strict meaning of the imperial decree, s an un
lawful emgrant." He had incurred and pal,
the penalty of that offence by the loss of all hi
civil and political rights If he had property
it had escheated, and he was reduced to stat
worse than absolute allegiance for aliens have
by right, the benefit of the civil laws for pro
lection, in whatever country they may be
! Stripped by this imperial decree of civil anc
political rights, Koszia had, in Austria, no re
dress for personal wrongs, and abroad he hat
no claim to protection from the Goyernmen
that would still hold him as a subject He was
in regard TO Austria, an outlaw What righ
can a sovereign have to the allegiance of a per
son reduced by him to such miserable condi
ton! Ii seems to have been the very object o
the Austrian decree TO dissolve the previou
political connection between the ''unlawfu
emgrant" and the Emperor. In Koszta's cas-
il was dissolved.
! As some IMPORTANCE seemed to be attached
the Austrian government to the declaration
Koszta when imprisoned on the Austrian hris
that he was Hungarian, and would live an
die Hungarian" Mr. Marcy produces II
testimony OF Captain Ingraham that "he d
not hear Koszta say so y and proceeds;
1t may we'll be doubted whether Koszta eve
used any such language. Should it, however
| be admitted that he did make that or simlla
declaration, il cannot be fairly understood t
imply an acknowledgement that he was then