Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1845-1854, 1853-10-12

: of the government. IN war he shares equally
with them in the calamities which may befall the
country; his services may be 1tequred for its de-
fence; his life may be periled "a nd sacrificed in
maintaining its rights and vindicating its honor
In nearly all lrespects his and their conditions as to
q the duties and burthens of government are unds-
4tinguishabic; and what reasons can be given why,
II so far at least regards protection to persons
and properly abroad well as at home his rights
should not be co-extensiye with the rights of ma
tive born or NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.! Blythe law of
nations they have the same nationality; 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 whiehjreg-
, nlates national intercourse?' When the law of
nations determines the nationality of any man,
foreign W are bound do TO respect its de-
clsluou, E7qsb 10 s4i1BpSv IB!4aknuw tsam sdf 70
H. Mr. Marcy concludes as follews: qsu}uG aria
ss In relation to the department. ofthe American
tagents towards Mr.. Week becker, the Austrian
IConspl-G General, the undersighsd cannot conceive
That, there can be any ground of complaint. Moth
ling done to with him by Mr. 0f1ey, our Con-
sui mt Smyrna can possibly imply disrespect to
the Emperor of Austra. Neither in his private
government; did Mr.. Weekbecker take an opea
Tor an avowedg part in the opening scene Of the
outrage. His agency in that affair at its com
mencement was clandestine, This course implied
a consciousness on his part that the act was inde
fensible. This fact that he sought the adofthe civil
authority of Turkey to get Koszta into his posses
sion proves that he knew the mode he resorted to
for that purpose was illegal. The application of
Mr.. Off1ey to him to assist in, and consent to,
Koszta's release, was certainly no offence, and
implied no disrespect to bin Or his government"
f. The appeal of Mr.. Brown to Captain 1ngraham
oiRterpose forIthe Liberation of Koszta, and his
advice to effect tin the wayait was done, must
be regarded, not only as proper, but praiseworthy
acts, provided that Captain Ingraham's conduct
can be Vindicated. The justification of Captain
Ingraham will illconsequently Mr. Brown
from all eehsure,5 II Captain dIhgraham's course
was right, Mr.. Browns cannot be wrong. The
commander of the st. Louis was placed in truly
embarrassing position. Charged with the, pro-
lection of the persons and property of those who
had Alright to the protection of his government, i
was, at the same time, no less his Imperative duty
to respect the authorities of all countries in friend
lyirelations with his own. After anxouslyec con-
sidering the case presented to him at Smyrna, ,Ihe
determined that he ought to effect the release of
Koszta and if unavoidable, resort to force to- acr
complish H.
-b'Ithas excited some surprise here that, after
consideration of the circumstances, an impression
should be entertained in any quarter that Captain
Ingrahamseither committed or Ineditated hostility
towards Austria on that occasion. In passing
the conclusions established, as the undersigned
believes, the preceding remarks; for he, with
out doubt, acted upon precisely the same conclu
sions.io He believed that Koszta had been seized
without authority, that he illegally imprison-
ed and that he ought at once to- be set at liberty.
The first aggressive act in this case was the
seizure of Koszta at Smyrna committed by the
procurement of the Austrian functionaries-the
first improper use of national ship, the imprs-
onnent of Koszta therein, was made by the COM
mander of the Austrian brig IIussari That ship
was converted into prison for the illegal deten-
ton of person clothed with the nationality. of
the Il United States, and consequently entitled to
their protection. IF Austria uphods, as it appears
she does,s the conduct of the commander of the
Hussar, she is in fact the first .aggressor. This
act of the, commander of,the Hussars led to the
series of other acts which constitute the ground
of complaint against the United States The al
lodged authority of Austria under treaties being
set aside, no one would have questioned Captain
.Ingraham's right had he been present, to arrest
the proceedings of the kdnappers in the streets
of Smyrna, and rescued Koszta from their hands.
They were acting without, and against, the civil
authority, of the place; they were committing a
atrocious. outrage upon person invested with the
nationality of the United States Ifhe could
have properlyginterf in the first stage Of this
lawless transaction, he might do so in the last
The act was in alits stages a continuous wropg,
and the character of the actors, though there was
aIsuccession of persons, was the same; they were
all wrong -doers; and if they CHANGED to have the
possession of ship, and converted tinto
prison for the purpose of consumatihg this
wrong, that ship, thus desecrated, was not enti-
tied to the privileges of sanctuary. Those who
had q right to claim, and the power to release the
prisoner illegally confined therein, might treat it
as a prison. and while itswas degraded to such an
ignoJle purpose might forget, and be excused for
forgetting, that it was national ship, go, FL,
-.Therepis consideration, probably not brought
to the notice of Austria and not sufficiently regard
ed by others, which places the acts of Captain
Ingraham in true light, and repels the inference
of intended hostile demonstrations towards Aus
tria twas the understanding of the parties that
Koszta should be retained at Smyrna while the
question of his nationality was pending. Capt,
I,rrabam received satisfactory evidence of de-