Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1854-03-03


d"ur nothing +, forfeit hi dsiusl el.iu, to the
mrrit OF that decision.
la respect 10 Captain lngrtham, the writer heart.
il ipia' IL IN applause universally awarded t,
lin, md vseh hn - ahuodnnty deserve. 4 b.
il tiy ob'ety.d in letter to the Legation, the
opinion u .'tr. Brow wa not binding upon him.
ami consequently, had the government di.approvcd
q! MS Interference, that opinion would hrvo been
~ publication H. the naturnl coutse Of thing.
the responsibility aud merit OF me tta opinion
belonged t. Mir. brown, the risk and credit Of the
..'st a-'''n to Captain Insraham, and they
cordInSiy entitled, enc in his several sphere, t,
equal proportions Of that praise. in which no thid
competitor can claim IL" smallest share.
A. for MIR. IIarsh, we need give ourselves littl.
concern for him He Is now q private man. and
quite ont Ut the reach Of official applause.
None Of his interests likely to be injuriously
effected by the public verdict biz conduct, and he
Is not oi particularly 'ensitive temperament, hut
the contrary consttutionnlly rather fond Of being
we'll abused. lie can therefore very well afford to
sul'r the penalties, if any, due to his own short
rofnings, and ii need be- even to be made a scape.
on ior the legal plumbers and petty resentment OF
Mr.. Consul oiley, well for the folly, ingratt-
.uh
Captain Martin kosita.
1t ought il candor To be added, that Mr.. Ofiey is
not to be condemned simply for his erroneous decs.
ion. The question was new. difficult, and, in princi
pie, of grca; Importance AMI delicaey and notwith
st'niing ali the ability since brought to bear upon
1t, the only point yet made uncquivocaly clear 10
that the seizure Of hoszta had nothing Of the char
acter II legal act, bat gross violation Of
natural and international law. The first error Of
Obey, therefore i. neither TRANCE objectionable,
and had b. hot attempted to atone for that error,
by u sembance OF extravaganza zeal iu maintenance
Of right which he had at fret denied, and especially
had he NOT confined With malignant ANA unIrinci
Piled persons in America to d,tIact from the fair
lame u Mr.. Brcwr and deck his own brow with
laurcls unfairly stolen from him. he would have
escaped without censure, though entirely without
appliance Atit -, hove yer the jud ,rn"nt OF impair
tial men viii never acluit him oil d iisingenuous
attempt 60 cover his own Mistakes nnd appropriate
to him II the honorable rewards, which, he well
knew belonged exclusively u another.
IL i. MT proposed ut present DISCUSS the ques-
tion- Vi international Law involved in thi, case.--
They have been widely debated By the periodical
press, and ited with signal ability by the Secretary
!
suggest the query, whether too much stress is not
laid the determination of Kosztas yieLts and too
little on the urong committed by Austria The
question does BY no means turn exclusively, or even
| chiefly on the former OF these points, and word
will show that other important elements at least
equally entitled to be considered Let US suppose
koszta a native born American citizen, who, during
| temporary visit to Austria had committed an
offence against her laws, and then fed into Turkey
Let us for the sake Of argument admit the position
of Austria that Turkey is bound by treaty and by
usage to surrender up TO her in general, all fug-
tives from her territory charged with having com.
| mittcd crimes within it OF what Importance in
that case, is the nationality Of the fugitive Will
any one contend that Turkey could not surrender
up to Austria, or even authorize Austria to seize
American citizen, who had committed her soil an
ordinary high crime, theft, forgery, murder, and
then taken refuge in Turkey No man will 70 the
length Of this. 1t becomes then of cardinal impor-
lance to show, that in the present the right Of
seizure claimed by Austria did not exist, and that
kos1ta was consequently not lawfully in custody Of
the Austrian naval commander, and then, an incho-
ate or otherwise imperfect right, Turkey refusing
to interfere, would justify the interpostion OF Capt
lngraham. In the opinion of the writer the sbso.
Lutte iegality Of the seizure of Kossta may be put
on so clear ground, that all the world must agree
that it is not to be considered an Official ar.
rest, but as simply an act OF private violence, and
this being established, mere colour of right is 9
sufficient ground Of interference Its safer to rest
the question on the reaknsss of the Austrian case
which a"y jurist will allow. then upon tn,
strength of koslta's, which very many will dispute
better to defend ourselves recognized and e,tab.
lished principles, than to resort to quesionab bic
doctrines, however plausible, which may involve
consequences that tic r;ss.t .,uuo. ry.v.ev.
MEDITERRANEAN.
Malta, January -, 1854.