Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-02-15
SPEECH OF HON. D. 7. DISNEY.

ON the Vote Of Thanks TO Capt. Ingraham,
Ia tie House % Representatives, Jan. II, 1854
The House having under consideration the
joint resolution for vote Of thanks and the
presentation of a sword to Captain Ingraham-.
Mr.. DISNEY said:
Mr.. SPEAKER: When this resolution was be-
fore the House the other day, the gentleman
from Georgia Mr.. HmLYER remarked that
the world would not only notice the passage of
the resolution, but would also examine the OBJ
seryations which had been made, and the
opinions which might be expressed when the
resolution was under consideration. There is
truth in the remark and, had it not been that
during this discussion some opinions had been
advanced from which must totally dissent,
should not have participated in the debate.
So far as the resolution itself is concerned,
feel that after the exceedingly able, clear, and
lucid defence which the gentleman from Lou
isiana Mr.. PERKINs] has just made, any adj
ditional remarks of mine in that regard may
perhaps be said to be entirely uncalled for.
That gentleman has placed the resolution and
its phraseology, and the reasons which operated
on the committee TO adopt that phraseology,
upon grounds unmistakable, and, in my judg-
ment, not to be questioned
believe that it is conceded, on all hands,
that the thanks of Congress are justly due to
Captain Ingraham for his gallant action; and
the only difference Of opinion, so far as ! UNI
derstand it, is in regard to the reasons upon
which 'tthat, act should be based. believe that
every gentleman is prepared to go to the ex-
tent to which the resolution goes; and allow
me here to say that / see no substantial differ
ence between the resolution as it now reads
and the substitute suggested by the gentleman
from Alabama mr. Pumps
What is the resolution as it stands before the
House? 1t proposes vote of thanks to Cap
tain Ingraham for his judicious and gallant
conduct in extending the protection of the
American flag to Martin Koszta, under The
facts, and under all the facts of the case, with
ont any limitation. 1t is true that the facts
themselves are not specially set forth in the
resolution; nor would usage or good taste per
nit thing of the sort. But, by necessity and
unavoidable implication, the resolution pro-
poses to give vote of thanks to Captain In
graham for extending the protection of the
American flag under the facts. Nay, more,
sir; the resolution goes further, for it declares
that the seizure of Martin Koszta was illegal
What more can gentlemen ask than resolu-
ton which declares that Captain Ingraham is
entitled to the thanks of the American Con-
gress for his judicious and gallant conduct in
extending the protection Of the American flag
to Martin koszta, who had been seized in vio-
lation OF his rights, and in view Of his rela-
tons to the American government? Does not
this cover the whole case? ask the question,
is there any substantial difference, in idea or
principle, between the resolution as it stands
and the amendment suggested by the gentle.
man from Alabama?
The right to ask protection and the duty to
grant it are correative and coexistent That
resolution asserts that Captain Ingraham did
right IN extending the protection of the Ameri-
can flag to Martin Koszta; and, by necessary
implication, the right Of Martin Koszta to that
protection is asserted repeat that the reso-
luton IS, as take it, an expression of the very
principles whose avowal is asked for by the
gentleman from Alabama.
But, sir, as | have already said, the very able
calculation and defence of the resolution. by
the gentleman from Louisiana, has rendered it
entirely unnecessary for me to interpose anv
additional observations upon these points, But
remarks have been ELECTED during the discns-
sion, and opinions have been enunciated, from
which am compelled to dissent 1t is at all
times unpleasant to differ from ones friends,
and the more unpleasant as the occasion rises
in dignity and importance. Nobody has a
higher admiration for the ability Of the present
distinguished Secretary of State than have.
am proud to call him my friend. / admire
his ability-an ability exhibited on no occasion
with more signal success than upon the occa-
sion of Martin Koszta's seizure-but there are
points in his letter with which / cannot agree.
When this country shall undertake to interpo-
late the law of nations with new principles and
a new creed, it will be time for us to consider
the policy of so doing
1t has been remarked, as well in the Koszta
letter as upon this floor, that the Secretary OF
State set forth on that occasion no new doc
trine; that he only referred to principles known
to the law of nations. To this must rive INV
dissent / do not SO read it. For the purposes
of commerce, the laws of nations have recop-
Missed the fact that an individual NAV acquire
q domicil in country alien to the one of his
origin. They have recognised that for com.
nicsciaL purposes, he may be clothed with the
nationality of a country alien to the one to
which he owes his allegiance; and the error ot
the Secretary consists in this he has con
founded political with commercial law-tha
while he finds the language which he uses run
ming through the books upon the subject, vel
he has omitted to notice and recognise the dis
tinction of which / have spoken, that the ma
tionality which is given by domicil is con
ferred for commercial purposes. This distinc
uon Is palpably ana Enthusiastically laid dowr
in the very authorities which the Secretary him
self cites; and 10 this nationality the individual
must be limited TO such acts as are not incom
patible with his allegiance
Clothed with the nationality for commercial
purposes The distinction, sir, is an impor
tant one. In a state Of war between two coun.
tries, in order to define the rights Of respective
parties, courts have tried with exceeding
nicely the relations existing with parties and
it has been held that, when an individual ac-
quires domicI in a country alien to the
country to which he owes his allegiance. he
does so Cor local and commercial purposes
but that such nationality does not affect his all
legiance.
As the property of country constitutes a
part OF It's strength, SO The legitimate right Of
country in time Of war is to weaken its enemy
by the destruction and capture of its pronertv !.
and the courts Of England and France. as we'll
as those OF our own country, have held that in
the execution Of this right, it is not to be per.
mitted to an individual, under cover Of n d;e
ferent nationality, though resident Of the
country, to protect the property which is the
product of the hostile soil. So in the case 4,
n Subipct of great Rrifain dor,;o;l;a.al !,