The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1853-10-06

moving was to make a permanent settlement,
or for an indefinite time, the right of domicil
is acquired by a residence Of few days'-
The Venus, Cranch, 279) "Vattel has de-
fined domicil TO be a fixed residence in any
place, with an intention Of always staying
there. But this is not an accurate statement
IL would be more correct to say that that place
is properly the dOmicil of a person in which
his habitation is fixed, without any present in.
tention OF removing therefrom.o ~ Story's Con.
of Laws, 43) "A person who removes to
foreign country, settles himself there, and en-
cages in the trade Of the country, furnishes by
these acts such evidence Of an intention per-
manently to reside there as to stamp him with
the national character Of the State where he
resides Venus, s Cranch, 279.)
Apply these principles to the case under
consideration, and the inevitable result is, that
Koszta had domicil in the United States He
came to and resided in this country one year
and eleven months He came here with the
intention of making it his future abode This
intention was manifested in several ways, hut
most significantly by his solemn declaration
upon oath There can be no better evidence
Of his design of making the United States his
future home than such declaration and to
this kind of evidence Of the Intention the in
dispensable element of true domicil, civilians
have always attached Importance. Phillmore,
1881 la the case of Koszta we have all
that is required to prove he had domicil in
the United States-the concurrence of an act
ual residence with the intention to make this
country his future home
The establishment of his domicil here in
vested him with the national character of this
country, and with that character he acquired
the right to claim protection from the United
States, and they had the right to extend it to
him rs long as that character continued
The next question is, was koSzta clothed
with that character when he was kidnapped
in the streets Of Smyrna, and imprisoned on
board of the Austrian brigof-war Huszarl
The national character acquired by residence
remains as long us the domicil continues, and
that continues not only as long as the domi-
cled person continues in the country Of his
residence, but until he acquires new dOmicil
The law as to the continuance and change OF
a domcil is clearly stated in the following
quotation from an eminent lurist:
However, in many cases actual residence
Is not indispensable to retain a dOmicil after it
is once acquired but it is retained, amino solo,
by the mere intention not to change it, or to
adopt another If, therefore, person leaves
|
intention to return to it, this change of place
is not in law change of domicil. Thus if a
person should go on voyage to sea, or to a
foreign country, for health OF for pleasure, or
for business of a temporary nature, with an
intention to return, such transitory residence
would not constitute new domicil, or amount
to an abandonment of the old one for it is
not the mere act of inhabitancy in place
which makes it the domici but it is the fact
coupled with the intention of remaining there,
amino mGnendi." (Story's Con. of Laws, "A
AT the very last session of the Supreme
Court of the United States, a case came up for
adjudication, presenting question as to the
domicil of General Kosciusko, at the time oi
his death. The decision, which was cOncurred
in by all the judges on the bench fully sustains
the correctness of the foregoing propositions in
regard to domicil, particularly the two most
important in Koszta's case first, that he &C
quired domicl in the United States; and
second, that he did not lose it by his absence
in Turkey. ia Towards Reports s. C. u s.
400)
AS the national character, according to the
law of nations depends upon the domicil, il
remains as long as the domicil is retained, and
is changed with it. Koszta was, therefore
vested with the nationality of an American
citizen at Smyrna, if he, in contemplation o.
law, had domicil in the United States. The
authorities already referred to show that tC
lose dOmicil when once obtained the domi
ciled person must leave the country OF his resi-
dence with the intention to abandon that resi-
dence, and must acquire a domicil in another
Both OF these facts are necessary to effect O
change Of domicl but neither Of them exist,
in Rosetta case. The facts show that he wai
only temporarily absent from this country or
private business with no intention of remain
ing permanently in Turkey, but, on the con
trary, was, at the tffn6 OF his seizure, awaiting
an opportunity to return to the United States.
Whenever, by the operation of the law o
nations an individual becomes clothed witt
our national character, be he a native born o
naturalized citizen, an exile driven from hi
early home by political oppression, or an EN-
grant enticed from it by the hopes OF bette
fortune for himself and his posterity, he Cal
claim the protection of this Government, an
it may respond to that claim without bein,
obliged to explain its conduct to any foreigI
Power; for it is its duty to make it's national
ity respected by other nations, and respectable
in every quarter of the globe.
This right to protect persons having domi
ell, though not native-born or naturalized cti
zens, rests on the firm foundation of justice
and the claim to be protected is earned b,
considerations which the protecting power i
not at liberty to disregard. Such domcie,
citizen pays the same price for his protection
as native-born or naturalized citizens pay TO
theirs. He is under the bonds of alegianc,
to the country of his residence, and if h,
breaks them, incurs the same penalties II,
owes the same obedience to the civil laws anC
must discharge the duties they impose on him
His property is in the same way, and to tn,
same extent as theirs, liable to contribute {,
the support of the Government In war h.
shares equally with them in the calsmite,
which may befall the country his service,
may be required for its defence his life may
be perilled and sacrificed in maintaining it,
rights and vindicating its honor. In nearly all
respects, his and their condition a. - the du
ties and burdens of Government are undistin
guishable and what reasons can be given
why, 80 far at least as regards protection to
person and property abroad az well az at home
his rights should not be co-extensive with the
rights Of native-born OF naturalized citizens
BY the law of nations they have the same ma
tonalty and what right has any foreign
Power, for the purpose Of making distinction
between them, to look behind the character
given them by that code which regulates ma
tional intercourse When the law of nations
determines the nationality of any man, foreign
Governments are bound To respect its decision
They would have no cause to complain, il
the protecting Power should stand upon its
extreme rights in all cases but that Power,
in discharging its duties Of protecting, may,
for sufficient reasons, have some regard for the
civil distinctions which its own laws make be-
tween the different classes Of persons to whom
it has the right under international law, to
extend its protection. IL will naturally watch
with more care, and may act with more igor,
in behalf of native born and naturalized cti-
zens, than in behalf Of those wll0, though
clothed with its nationality, have not been so
permanently incorporated into its political
community