The Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1852-1853, 1853-10-12
TERMS, sl,5O

ldI IdtOuS vi tHC publlC HleH VI tnO OieS %
evidence in regard TO an issue Of this kind.
Their explicit dencial may be fairly consider
ed as equivalent to Ausuia's affirmation
without proof, where proof, if it existed,
could so easily be adduced
In despatch to this government Of the
4lh of Au gust 1853, Mr.. Marsh the Amer
lean Minister Residen! at Copstantinople
says:
Il have had several conversations on
this subject with the minister of Foreign AT
fairs and with XII Pacha, governor of
Smyrna, at the time the affair took place.
These distinguished persons are very far
from expressing any dissatisfaction with the
course pursued by us. They sustain the
view tie legation has taken Of the legal
character of the que sti0n, and All Pacha
informs me that few years since the Aus
trian government refused to surren Ter to the
Porte Turkish rebels who had He'd into
Austria on the very ground now taken by
the Porte-namely, that the treaties did not
provide for the exradition OF political Often
ders."
Mr.. Brown, the Charge d. Affaires ad
interim of the United States at Constentino-
pie, writes that in an interview with Cheh-
il Etfindi, also Turkish officer OF high
rank and great experience, in which the
affair at Smyrna was discussed, he obser-
we'd that 1.-The Austrian government does
not possess the power by treaty to arrest
any one on Ottoman soil Tor political Of
fensiye." There is now, however, something
more decisive from Turkey Than the opln-
ioD of her public men in opposon to this
treaty claim Of Austria. Tie Government
of the Porte has pronounced judgment in
relation to the seizure of koszta which
Austria herself is bound to respect. 1t has
protested against the conduct OF the AustrI-
an agents in that affair as unlawful, and a
violation of its sovereignty; but not one word
of complaint, not murmur OF dBsatlsfac-
lion from Turkey against the conduct ofthe
tnnctionaries of the United States at Smyr-
"a, has yet reached this government. This
is certainly AN anomalous case. Austria
arraigns the United States for violating the
rights OF Turkey in the koszta affair, Tur-
key, tie offended party, exhonerates the
United States, and protests against Austria,
our accuser, for the very same offence.
These considerations have led the under
signed, as he believes they will lead all 9TH
ers lho duly rehct on them, to the conf
dent conclusion that there exists no treaties
between Austria and Turkey which could
justify or to any way countenance the Sci
zure or Imprisonment Of Koszta by the Aus
trian tunctiunalies.
But il Austria really has such authorities
by treaties us She now claims, it confessedly
extends only to "Austran subjects" 1t
could not therefore, be applied to Koszta
unless he was such SUI bject at the time he
was seized. II the question of his national
ity Is to be settled by international law. the
only code which furnishes the rules by which
this question is to be determined, there is no
good reason for adjudging him to have been,
when seized at Smyrna, an Austrian subject.
But settled, by an appeal to her own civil
code, the result will be the same.
BY the consent and procurement of the
Emperor of Austria, ko>zta had been sent
into perpetual banishment. The Emperor
was party 70 the expulsion of the Hunga-
riau refugees from Turkey. The sovereign
by such in act dcprives his subjects TO
whom it is applied OF all their rights under
his government. lie places them where
he cannot, if he would, afford them protec-
tion. BY such an act ne releases the le-
glance. Any other result would make the
political connrxion between the subject and
the sovereign state ofunmiligated Vassaise,
in which all the duties and no yhts would
be on one side, and all the rights and no du-
lies would be no the other. Koszta must
be regarded as having been bBmished by
Austria Tor he WAS one of the hungarian
refugees whom she procured to be expelled
from Turkey in l949. They were released
from confinement at kutahia on condition Of
submitting to perpetual Punishment, and
she had two persons present AT their depar-
Iure, "who claimed and obtained there an,
active shar- in the arrangements" hosz!a.
could never hereafter be lightiufIy de-
n1andtd as an AUSTRIAN subject. 3.asf6,
The proposition that koSzta at Smyrna
was not an "Au, trian snhjecL'' can be sns-.
tanned on another ground. By a decree Of
the Emperor Of Austria of the 24th Of MARCH,
1852, Austrian subjects leaving the domin-
ions ofthe e aper,r without permission. Of
the magistrate and release of Austrian
citizenship and with an intention never to re-
turn, become "anlaWjM emigrpats, = and
lose their cival and political rights at home.
(eucy. Araer. Tit Emigration, 2 kent's
Com, 5O,51.)
K3$z.a had left Austria without permis-
sion, with the obvious AMI avowed intention
never to return; he was, therefore, within
the strictest meaning Of the imperial decree,
an "unlawful emigrant" He had incurred
and paid the penalty of ilat offence by die
loss Of all his civil and political tights II
he bad property, it had eschtated, and be
was reduced 70 a state worse than absolute
alipnage; for aliens have BY right, The BEN
eft u the civil laws for protection, III What
ever country they may be. Stripped by
this imperial decree of civil ana political
rights, Koszta hal, in Austria, 10 redress
lor persouef wrongs, aid abroad he had no
claim to protection frcm The government
| that would hold him as subject He was
in regard 10 Austria an outlaw. What
right Can sovereign have to the alliance of
"a person reItced by him to such a misera-
bic condition? 1t seems to have been the
Eobitct of the Austrian decree'to dissolve the
previous cannexion betw the +'uuiaYful
Eemigrsnt" and the Emperor. In Kuszla's
case II is dissolved. N fs#
Some Importance seems to be attached
to ,,ssoszta's own opinion Of his citizenship.
The note Of Mr. 1lulsemann conveyed the
Impression, that lie acknowledged himself