The Sedalia weekly bazoo. [volume] (Sedalia, Mo.) 187?-1904, 1884-09-02

war. His release was demanded BY the
American officisls and refused. At once
Captain lngraham, of our navy, prepared
his sloop of war, the 81. Louis, for action,
and would have destroyed the Austrian
vessel had not terms been agreed to, where
by kOszta was placed in the charge of the
French government, to abide the decision
of the question.
The correspondence which followed, saws
one OF our historians, was one of the sblest
on record, and extended, before its termin-
alton, to almost every question affecting
naturalization and cSzenship. 1t was
conducted on the part OF Austria by the
minister at Washington, Baron Hulseman,
and on the part of the United States bv
Mr.. Marcy, MAJ of great power and
thoroughly American. The same writer
says Mr.. Marcy was completely triumph
ant In his argument, and koszta was re.
mauded TO The United States.
1ou will observe that Martin Koszta
was not an American citizen: had only
declared his intention TO become such. and
that his return 10 Europe was voluntary
ON his part. His case would not fall with
in the letter of either platform. The
platforms speak Ouly Of citizens adopted
and natives. Ia That correspondence the
right OF explrtiatiO became established,
and what more important, possibly, that
right was held 10 include the period be-
tween the settlement of the emigrant snd
his declaration Of intention and the adj
mission TO citizenship. Mr.. Marcy said
"the result is that Kosz,a acquired while
In the United States their national charac.
ter that he retained that character when
he was seized at Smyrna, and that he had
right to be respected as such while
there by Austria and every other foreign
power" That doctrine became establish
ed. kOszta was returned TO the United
States
Under the authority in Koszta's case
the European emigrant Of whatever coun-
try is protected by the United States from
the day of his settlement and declaration OF
his intention having become clothed with
our national character" The courage of
Captain Ingraham and the learning and
ability of Mr.. Marcy not only restored
Kozsts to his liberty and to his rights, but
established the same rights in favor of
every emigrant to this country. The case
gave to our country great position aad in
huence among other nations. For his
gallantry congress voted Captain Ingra-
ham medal. This vas during the demo-
cratic administration of Franklin Pierce.
Ia striking contrast is
THE CASE OF M'swEENEY,
for the facts of which | refer to the able
statement and argument of Mr.. Voorhees,
before the senate in 1882. McSweeney was
citizen of the United States. He had
lived In this country, in pursuit of legiti-
mate trade, for more than a quarter of a
century. With his family he visited
Ireland. Without the charge OF crime or
the violation of law, he was seized BY the
officers of the British government and
cast into prison. This occurred on the
I'd Of June, 1881. For more than ten
months his Imprisonment was continued.
During that period appeals were made on
his behalf for his restoration .and liberty.
On the 18th of August there was received
at our state department a letter from
his wife, in which she says that "Some
four years ago came with my family, on
account of my husbands failing health,
to ide temporarily in this country.
was aware that England claimed this
island, but / was under the impression
that Americans might venture to travel or
reside abroad, protected by their flag but
In this was mistaken"
1t is not alleged that McSweeney had
committed any crime or violated any
law. He being an American citizep, he
Immediately forwarded his naturalization
papers, together with a solemn protest
against this British outrage, to the
American minister at London. Mrs.
McSweeney's communication and appeal
were made to the secretary of state direct
while Mr.. Blaine held that Office, and
when, as suppose, he was in the discharge
of many of the duties Of the president.
That appeal was not answered, nor was The
minister at London instructed to give it
attention. The case received no attention
at the state department until Mr.. Blaine
had retired from Office, which was, as
understand, in December following, four
months after Mrs. McSweeney's appeal
was received.
His duty in such case is clearly de-
clared by the laws of the United States,
which provide that Whenever il is made
known to the president that any citizen of
the United States has been unjustly de-
prived of his liberty by or under the
authority of any foreign government, it
shall be the duty of the president forthwith
to demand of that government the reason
of such imprisonment, and if it appears to
be wrongful and in violation of the rights
of American citizenship, The president shall
forthwith demand the release of such
citizen" Was it not enough that Mr..
Blaine was informed that an American
citizen was confined in British Jail, and
that he had been guilty of no violation of
the law, and that no charge OF violation of
the law had been made against him ?
Could duty be palmer, or its neglect more
fragrant? Had Marcy been the secretary
of state at The time, would McSweeney
have 10 lguished in prison for ten months ?
Would his wife's letter have lain unnotic-
ed in the state department Under Marcy
American rights were indicated. Under;
Blaine they were neglected.
Not long since made the acquaintance
of
OvRRToR CLEVELAND.
/ found him affsble and courteous clear