Plymouth Banner, Volume 2, Number 33, Plymouth, Marshall County, 20 October 1853 — Page 2

that law; aud especially that which is confirmed by Divine sanction, and enjoins upon all men everywhere, when not acting unJer leg) restraints, to do unto Others whatsoever the would have that, others should do unto them; they were . bound to do no wrong, and to the extent ( of their means to prevent wrong from, being done; to protect the. weak from be-! ing oppressed by the strong, and to relieve the distressed. In ih case sup- ! poied, Koszta was seized without any! rightful authority. He was suffering 1 grievous wrong any one that could : might relieve him. To do so v.-as a duty ! imposed under the peculiar circumstances j of the case by the laws of huminily. ; Captain Ingraham. in doing what he did! for the release of Koszia, wou'd, in - this;

view of the case, ba. fully jtstified upon j this principle. Who, in such a casa. can fairly take offence? Who hive a right to complain?. Not the wrongdoers, surely: for they can appeal to no law to justify th-ir con luct. Th?y can d'rive no support from civil authority, for there' was none called into action; nor from the law ol natur, lor that they nave violated. To . the jurisdiction of the American a ts still further beyond controversy, the undersigned will now proceed to show that Koszta. when ha was seized and imprisoned at Smyrna, had lh national character of an Amnnoaa. an i tha governmeut of the United States had the right to extend its protection over him. The genuineness of the certificate which he produced when he chimed protection as n American citizen, has been questioned, in consequence of the imperfect copy given by Mr. Brown to the A xstriiii internuncio; but that which he produced to the American consul at Smyrna, anil tu Ciptaiu Iiigrahairi. to th commander of the Austrian brig Hussar, and to the Austrian Consul-Geuenl. was genuine. A correct copy of it has been sent to this D-'pirtmnt. aal verified by a comparison with the record of the court of New York, in which Koszta made his declaration in due form of law. To remove all doubt on this subpct, a certified copy of that record is annxod to this communication. It is not contended that this initiatory step in th? process of naturalization invested him with all the civil rights of an American citizen; but it is sufficient for all the purposes of this case to show that he wis clothed with American nationality; and in virtue thereof, the govern ment of the United States was auihorizsd to extend to him its protection, at horns and abrovl. Mr. Hulsemana. as the undersigned believes, falls intu a great error an error fatal to some of his most important conclusions by assuming that a nation can properly extend its protection only to native bom or naturalized citizens. This is not the doctrine of international law, nor is the practice of nations circumscribed within such narrow limits. This Uw does not, as has been remarked, complicate questions of this natura by respect for municipal codes. In relation to this subject, it has clear ani distinct rules of its own. It gives the nationil character of tha country not only to native-born and naturalized citizens, but to all residents in it who are there with, or even without, an intention to become citizens, provided they have a domicil therein. Foreigners may, and often do, acquire a domicil in a country, even though they have entered it with the avowed intention not to become naturalized citizens, but to return to their native land at some remote and uncertain period; and whenever they acquire a domtcil, international law at once impresses upon them the national character of ths country of that domicil. It is a maxim of international law that domicil confers a national character, it dors not allow any one who has a domicil to decline the national character thus conferred: it forces it upon him often very much agtinst his will, and to his great detriment. International law looks only to the. national character in determining what country has the right to protect. If a person goes from this country abroad, with the nationolity of the United States, this law enjoins upon other nations to respect him. in regard to protection, as an American citizen. It concedes to every country the right to protect any and all who may be clothed with its nationality. These are important principles in their bearings upon the questions presented in Mr. Hulsemiun's note, ani are too obvious to ba contested; but as they are opposed to soma of the positions taken by Austria, the undersigned deem3it respectful in such a case to sustain them by reference to authorities. 'The position is a clear one, that if a person goes into a foreign countiv. and engages in trade there, he is by the law of natioas, to be considered a merchant of that country, and a subject for all civil purposes whether that country be hostile or neutral." (I Kent Cira.. 75.) Again, the same authority sya that 'Iu the law of nationi. as to Europ-, the rule is. that men take their national character from the general character of tha country in which thev reside' (Ibid. 73.) If Koszta ever lud i domicil in the United States, he, wai. in virtus thereof, invested with the nationality of this country, and in this character continued as long as that domicil was retained. There are cases in which it is difficult to settle the question cf domicil; but that of Koszta is not one of them. The most approved definitions of a domicil are the following: "A residence at a particular place, ac compani! with positive or presumptive proof of continuing there for an ualimtti time." (I Binoay Rojrortt, 349.)

If it sufficiently appear that the intention of removing was to make a permanent settlement, or for an indefinite time, the right of domicil is acquired by a residence of a few days." (The Venus, 8 Cranch. 279.) "Vattel has defined domicil to be a fixed residence in any place, with an intention of always staying there. But this is not an accurate statement. It would be more correct to say tht that place, is properly the domicil of a person in which his habitation is fixed, without any present intention of removing therefrom." (Story's Con. of Laws, sec. 43.) "A person who removes lo a foreign country, settles himself there, and engages in the trade of th country.

furnishes bv thi-se acts such evidence of an intention permanently to reside there as to stamp him with the national character of the State where he resides. " (The Venus, 8 Cranch. 279.) Apply these principles to the same under consideration, and the inevitable result is, that Koszta had a domicil in th United States. He came and resided in this country one year an I eleven months. H came here with the intention of making it his future abode. This intention was manifested in several ways, but most significantly by his solemn declaration upon oath. There can be no better evidence of his design of making the United States his future home, than such a declaration; and to this kind of evidence of the intention, the indispensihle element of true domicil. civilian hav always attached importance (Phillimore, sec. 1S5.) In the case of Koszta, we have all that is required to prove that he had a domicil in the United Stales the concurrence ofun actual residence, with the intention to make this country ha future home. The establishment of his domicil here invested him with the national character of this country, an 1 with that character he acquired the right to claim prelection from the United States, and they had the right to extern! it to him as lung as that character continued. The next question is. was Koszta clothed with that character when he was kidnapped in the streets of Smyrna, and imnrHoued on boird of the Austrian a Orig of war Huesar? The national character acquired by residence ra.nainsas long as the domicil continues, and that continues not only as long as the domiciled person continues in th country of his residence, but until he acquires a new domicil. The law as to the continuance and change of a domicil, is clearly stated iu the follo'ving quotatiou from an emi nent jurist: 'Huwever, in many cases, actual resi Je nee is not indUpens ible to retain a domicil after it is once acquired; but it is retained, anino solo, by the mere intentions not lo change it or lo adopt another. If, therefore, a pers n leaves his home for temporary purposs, but with an intention lo return to it, thii change of place is not in law a change of dotni cil. Thus, if a person should go on voyaga to sea, or to a foreign country for health or for pleasure, or for business of a temporary nature, with an intention to return, such a transitory residence would not constitute a new domicil, or amount to an abandonment of the old one; for it is not the mert act of iahabitance iu a place which makes it the domicil; hut ii is the fact coupled with the intention of remaining there, aaiwa marendi." (Story's Con. uf Laws, 44.) At the very last session of the Supreme Court of the United Slates, a case came up for adjudicaiion. presenting question as to the domicil of General Kosciusko at the lime of his death. The question, which was concurred in by all the judges of the bench, fully sustains the correctness of the foregoing propositions in regard to domicil, particularly the two most important in Koezta's case; first, that he acquired a domicil in the United States; and second, that he did not lose it bv his absence in Turkey. (14 Howard's R'-ooris S. C. U S. 400.) As the. national character, according to the law of nations, depends upon the domicil, it remains as long as the domicil is retained, and is changed with it. Koszta was. therefore vested will the nationality of an American citizen at Smyrna, if he, in contemplation of law, had a domtcil in the United States. The authorities already ref rred to, show that to lose a domicil when once obtained, the domiciled person must liave the country of his residence with the intention to abandon that residence, an i must acquire a domicil in another. LJjth of these facts are necessary to effect a change of domicil, but neither of them exists in Koszu's case. The facts show that he wjj only temporarily absent from this country, on private business, with no intention of remunitig permanently in Turkey, but on the contrary, was. at the tim of his seizure, awaiting an opportunity to return to the United States. Whenever, by the operation of the law of nations, an individual becomes clothed with our national character, bn be a native born or naturalized citizen, an exile driven from his early hom by a politic al oppression, or an emigrant enticed frc;n it by tha hopes of a better fortune for himself an I his posterity, he can claim the protection of this government, and it may respond to that claim without being obliged to explain its conduct lo any foreign power, for it is its duty to make its nationality respected by other nations. nd respectable in every quarter of the lobrt. This right to protect persons having a lomicil. though not native-born or naturalized citizens, rests on the firm founduion of justice, and the claim to be pro ;ectad is earned by considerations which the protecting power is not at liberty to ditregatd. Such domiciled citizen pay

the same price for his protection aa native-born or naturalized citizens pay for theirs. He is under the bonds of allegiance to the country of his residence, and if he breaks them, incurs the same penalties; he owes the' same obedience to the civil lawg, and must discharge the duties they impose upon him; his property is in the sme way, and to the same extent theirs, liable to contribute to the support of the government. In war, he shares equally with them in the calamities which may befal the country; his services may be required for its defence, his life may be periled and sacrificed in

maintaining its rights and vindicating its J honor. In nearly all .-espects his and their condition as to the duties and burlens of government are undislinguisha-1 . t Die; and what reasons can be given why. so fr at least as resards protection to persons and property as well as at home his rightsshould not be co-extensive with j the rights of native-born or naturalized citizens? By the law of nations they hae the S'ime nationality; and what right has any foreign power, for the purpose of making distinction between Ihem, to look behind the character given them, by that code which regulates national intercourse? When the law of nations detenniues the nationality of any msn, foreign governments are bound to respect its decision. They would have no cause, to complain if the protecting power should stand upon its extreme rights iu all cases; but that powjr. in discharging its duties of protecting. my. for sufficient reasons, have some regard for the civil distinctions which its own laws make between the different classes of persous to whom it was righl, under international law, to extend its protection. It will naturally walch with more care, and may act with more vigor, in behalf of native-born aud naturalized citizens, than in behalf of those who, though clothed with its nationality, have not been so permanently incorporated into its political community. Giving effect to these well established principles, end applying them to the facts in the case, '.'us result is. that Koszta acquired, while iu the United States, their national character; that he had retained that character when he was 6eized al Sinyrn'a, and that he had a righl to bo respected as such, while there, by Austria aud every otner foreign power. The right of a nation to protect, and to require others lo respect, at home and abroad, all wno are clothed with its nationality, is no new doctrine now for the first lime brought into operation by the United Slates. It is common to ail nations, and has had the sanction of their practice fwr agei; but it is new that at this late period, when the United States aspens a claim to it ns a common inheritance, it should al once be discovered that it is a doctrine fraught with danger and likely to cunpromit lhr peace of ihe world. -The United States see no tauie for alam; no reason for renouncing lor themselveswhat others have so long aud so harmlessly enjoyed. Thre may be a reluctance in some quarters to adopt the views herein pre senied relative to the doctrine of domi cils and consequent nationality, lest the practical assertion of it might, in tome instances, give a right of protection to those who do not deserve it. Fears are . ntertained thai this doctriue off rs a facility for acquiring a nalioml character which will lead lo alarming abuses; that undr the shadow of i. political agitators, iulent upon distuibing ihe repose of their own and other countries, might come to the United Slates with a view to acquire a claim to their protection, and then to return to their former scenes of action to carry on, under a changed national character, theii ulterior designs with greater security and better success. This apprehension is believed lo be wholly unfounded. The first distinct act done by theYn towards the accomplishment of these designs, would disclose their fraudulent purpose in coining to and seeking a domicile iu this country. Such a development would effectually disprove the fact that they acquired a domicil here, and with it our nationality. Without thai nationality they could not be considered as standiug under the protecting arm of the United Stales, and consequently could luve no right to claim, and no reason to expect, it would be exerird in their defence. Their fraudulent intent would defeal all they could hope lo gain by a residence in this country, and by in - sincerely professing to make it their home. The intention eutrrlaiued iu good faith to make it such a ho ne, would be wauling, and without such an intention, neither domicile . nor nationality an ba ai quired. Thia consideration should dispel all suspicion that this doctrine asto nationality and protection, will not be as safely used and as well guarded from j abuse by the United Slates as it has been in times past, or may be in the future, by auy other sovereign power. There is nothing in the doctrine herein muintaiued, or in the history of this government, to awaken lh& slightest apprehension that it is iu auy way iuciinwd to extend the shield of protection orer adventurers or seditious propagandists, who may go from this toother couniries to engage in euterprizes designed to ioterlere with their political iiistituiions, or disturb their internal quiet. The liberal policy of the United Stales in regard to receiving immigrants from all nations, and exten ling to them the advantages of their free institutions, makes it n act of justice on their part to maintain the right of national protection to ihe full exienti authorized by the law of nations, aud to resist with firmness auy attempt to impose naw restrictions upon it. There i another rjew cf this case

which places the conduct of the agents of this government at Smyrna upon equally defensible grounds. The American consul'there. and the American legation at Constantinople, acted with great caution in relation to Koszta'a claim to be regarded aS entitled to the protection of this government. As his naturalization had not been perfected. !hey hesitated at first to receive him under ti?r protection; hut the facts show that they ultimately yielded to his application. H received from each a Ttzkcreh in effect a certificate that the person to whom it i3 given is cared for, and received under the protection of the government whose agent has granted it.

By the laws of Turkey and other eastrrn nations, the consulates therein may ... receive under their protection strangers and sojourners whose religion and social manners do not assimilate with the religiou aud manners of those countries. The persons this received become invest ed with the nationality of the protecting consulate. These consulates and their European establishments iu the East, are iu the constant habit of opening their doors for the reception of such inmates, who are received irrespective of thecouiitry of their birth orallegiauce. It is not uncommon for them lo have a large number of 6uch prottges. International law recognizes and sanctions the rights acquired by this connection. In the law of nations as to Europe, the rule that men take their naiiunal character from the general character of the country in which they reside; and this rule applied equally to America. But in Asia and Africa an immiscibl character is kern ui). aud Europeans trading under; the protection of a factory, lake their ua lional character from the establishment under which they live and trade. This rule applies to those parts of the world from obvious reasons of policy, because foreigners ate uot admitted there, as in Europe "and the western part of the world, into the general body and mass of the society of the nation, but they continue strangers and sojourners, uot acquiring any national character under the general sovereignty of the country, (I Kent's Com., 78-9.) The Lords of Appeal in the High Court

of Admiralty in England, decided in 17SI ! 1,16 Pur P039 of consumating this wrong, that a mrrchaut carrying on trade at j th1 shiP hus desecrated was not entiS.nyrna. under ike paction of a Dutch ! llpJ 10 tlie privileges of a sanctuary. consul, was to bt considered a Dutchman ! Those who had ths right to claim, and as to his national character. ( Whealon's j thc Power to release the prisoner illegally Inter. Law. 331, 2 Rob. Adm. Reports, confined therein, might treal it as a pris 12.) ! on, aud while, it was degraded to such an This decision has been examined and ignoblt purpose might forget, aud be cxapproved by ;he eminent jurists who have j cusct for forgetting, that it was a nattcnsince written treatises on international j ship. law. I There if a consideration, probably not According to tha principle established j brought to ihe notice of Austria, end not in this case, Koszta was invested with ! sufficiently regarded by others, which the nationality of ihe United Slates, if j places the acts of Captain Ingraham in a he had it not before, the moment he was I true light, acd lepels the inference of inunder the protection of the A merit an I tended hostile demonstrations towards Consul at Smyrna, and the American le-1 Austrio. It was the understanding of gition at Constantinople. That he wts ' the partiea that Koszta shcul I be retainso received, is established by the Tzke-!ed at Smyrna while the question of his reh they gave him, aud the efforts they j nationality was pending. Captain Inmade for his release. The Charge d'Af- j graham received satisfactory evidence of fairs, ad interim, of the United States at j a design, on the part of the Austrian Constantinople, in a letter of June the j functionaries at Smyrna ana Constantino29th, addressed to the imperial internun- j pi?, lo disregard this arrangement, and cio, states: It was oa ; .-eventing this i remove him clandestinely from Ihe Hus declaration of allegiance to ihe cousulaU j sar on bord of a steamer, for the purpose of the United States of America at Smyr-J of taking him to Trieste. The informaua. and to this legation, that the said j lion vassuchja did not permit the Captain Koszta was furnished with a Tezkerehl to doubt that the commander of the Hus

to come to Coiiiiantinople and to return to Smyrna, whence he was to start for New York. Since h"i3 arrival in Turkey he has resided under the protection of my government, and it is a pleasure to me to be able to state that his conduct has al vays been irreproachable." Having been received under the protection of these American establishments, he had hereby acquired according to the law of nations, their nationality, und hen wronged and outraged us he waE, they might interpose for his liberation, and Capl. Ingraham had a right to co-operate with them for the accomplishment of that object. The exceptions taken to the manner of that co-operation remain to be cousideie J. In relation to the deportment of the American agents towards Mr. Weckbcckr, the Austrian Consul General, the undersigned cannot conceive that there can be any ground of complaint. Nothing done lo or with him by Mr. Ofll-y, our Consul at Smyrna, can possibly imply disrespect to the Emperor of Austria. j Neither in his private character, nor as a functionary of the Austrian government, did Mr. Weckbecker take an open or an avowed part in the opening sceue of the outrage. His agency iu that affair at iu commencement was clandestine. This course implied a consciousness on his pari that the act was indefensible. The fact that he sought the aid of the civil authorits of Turkey to get Koszta into his possession proves that he knew the mode he resorted to for that purpose was illegal. The application of Mr. Offley to him to assist in, and consent to Koszta's relerse, was certainly no offence, and implied no disrespect either to him or his government. The appeal of Mr. Brown to Captain Ingrahain. to interpose for the libera lion of Koszta and his advue to affect it in the way it was done, must be regerded, notouly as proper, but praise worthy acts, provided Capt. Ingraham's conduct can be vindicated. The Justification of Captain Ingraham will consequently exonerate. Mr. Brown from all censure.' If Cap tain Iugrhm'i course was right, Mr. Brown's cannot be wrong. The commander of the St. Louis was placed iu a truly embarrassing position. Charged with the protection oi tne persons and prop erty of those who had a right to the pro - tcction of hit government, it w, nt th

same time, no less his imperative duty to respect the authorities of all countries in friendly relitions with his own. After anxiously considering the case presented to hi:n at Smyrna, he determined that he ought to effect the release of Koszta. and. if unavoidable, resort to force to accomplish it. It has excited some surprise here that, after a consideration of the circumstances, an impression should be entertained in .my quarter that Captain Ingraham either co.7im.:ttcd or meditated hostility towards Austria on t.';t occasion. He believed that Koszta had be.n seized without authority, that h was ille-tUy imprisoned,

and that he ought at once to liberty. The most aggressive act in was the seizure of Koszta at committed by the procurement trian functionaries the first set at the cair Smyrna, of Ausimproper use of a national ship, the imprisonment of Koszia therein, was made by the c"mmander of the Austrian brig Hussar. That ship was converted into a prison for the illegal detention of a person clothed with the nationality of the United w.ao, - ....n-..v.7 protection If Austria uphold,, as it apV: i . k i 1 Ancannanl ir oti I i i irwl 4svtrtial pears soe noes, ine conduct oi tne com mander of the Hussar, she is n fact the first aggressor. This act of the commander of the Hussar led to a series of other acts which constitute the ground of complaint against the United Stales. The alledged authority of Austria, under trea j ties, being set aside, no one would have j questioned Captain Iugnham's right, had j he been present, to urrest the proceedings of the kidnappers in the streets of Smyrna, and rescue Koszta from their hands They were, acting without, and against, ihe civil authority of the place, they were committing an atrocious outrage upon a person invested with the nationality of the United States. If he could have properly interfered in the first stbge of this lawless transaction, he might do so in the last. The act was, in all its stages, a continuous wrong, a -.id the character of the actors, though there was a succession of persons, was the same; they were all wrong-doers; and if they chanced to have the possession of a n lional ship, and converted it into a prison for sar concurred iu this design, ed to nid in carrying it into an i intendeffect. By this evidence of the want of good faith on the part of tlie Austrian functionaries. j in which the Captain of the Hussar was ' implicated, the Captain of the St. Louis j placed in the perplexing alternative of j surrendering the captive, without further ! efforts, to the sad fate which awaited J him, or to demand his immediate release. ! and in case of refusal to enforce it. The government of the United States exceedingly regrets lbat he was reduced to this alternative; but it rannot find, after a full consideration of all the circumstances, any good reasons for disapproving the course he pursued. It is not just to Ciptain Ingraham to look at the affair is it was at the precise point cf time when the demand for the release of Ko?zta was made. The antecedent events qualify and legalize that act. Th Austrian functionaries had obtained possession of the person of Ko6zta, not in a fair or allowable way. but by violating the civil laws of Turkey and the rights of humanity. Under these circumstances their cus tody of him WAS entitled In no resnpft from the agent of the governmint which, bv virtue of his nationality, had a rieht

to protect him. Had all the circum- States to account for violating the surestancesas they were, except a change of! reign territorial rights uf the Emperor of place instead of being taken from the Turkey. territory of the Ottoman Porte, had he J The conclusions at which the President

been taken from that of the United States could a question have been raised as to the propriety of Captain Ingraham' conduct? If the conclusions heretofore arrived at are correct, the Austrian agents had no more right to take Koszta from the soil of the Turkish dominions than from the territory of the United States. and Captain Ingraham had the same right to demand and enforce hii release as he would have had if Koszta had been taken from American soil, and incarcerated in a national vessel of the Austrian Emperor In this question confined as it is to the United Stales and Austria, the place of the transaction is immaterial, unless the Austrian municipal law extends over it. The undersigned yields a ready assent to that part of Mr. Hulsemanu's note relative to the war making power The doctrine contained in it is sound and well sustained by most approved authorities; but the undersigned has not been able to (discover its applicability to the case unI der consideration. The people of the

United Stales in organising tlieir "government, have been carefu' to i.apose more restrictions upon that power hin anv of the nations of Europe, nd it rsnnot be admitted that these nations have had my occasion to reprove this government for its abuse. It has cs rbepan interest and aa anxious desire to maintain international relations of friendship and peaca as any of the European power3. ud will do as much as any cf thm fur public tranquility. The rules for its own guidance, and for the ton tuet of its agents abroad, have that end especially i,j view. On entering upon the duties of his of. fice, the President announced the policy which would be observed by this government in its foreign intercourse; "We

ä have nothing in our history cr position lo r'Jviic eregjicr.. yc uave everything to tkon t:s to the fiiendly rela tionsof pe :e nd amity with all nations. Purposes, therefore, at once just and pacific will be significantly tnsrke-i in 'th conduct of our foreign .efiVirs." Th?r need be no apprehensions cY departuro I from this course. In pursuance of this policy; t!;3 public agents of this government abroad are un der instructions to respect the rijits of ,,, ati and finv üevialiün from lbat course would be promptly disavowed and proper reparation made for any injury or insult which they might offer to a friendly power. The application made by Austria to the principle powrs of Enrope to warn and admonish the United S;atesin regard to the conduct of their agent9 on ihe occasion before mentioned, implies lhat this government has adopted and is acting upon some piinciple hitherto unknown to the law of nations, and dangerous to public tranquility. The communications to the government in compliance with this appeal, though respectfully made, and doubtless well intended, imply a distrust cf its good faith aud fait intentions. The undersigned is confident that, after due consideration of th views here taken of ihe affair at Smyrna, Ihose powers which have been so prompt to censure will be equally prompt to correct any precipitate judgment they may have formed in regard to it. He indulges the belief that, after a fu'.l ai:d fair examination not merely of a detached fact, but of the whole series of facts they will be abundantly satisfied that the agents of thi3 government in that transaction have respected international law, and in no particular transgressed the restiictioas it imposes The vindication of these egents is not placed upon auy principle n- v.- to the inlarnaiional cole-, or unknown in the practice of enlightened nations. Thesa nations do not hesitate, in the exercise of the right of protection, to extend it to persons (not always subjects according to their municiptl laws) who are clclhed with their nationality; and in some instances they have carried this right of protection to limits which this government would not venture, because it woulJ not feel justified, to appro3ch;nor have any of these been disposed to abandon the exercise of litis ruht from a timid apprehension that it might possibly bring them into an ot casionai collision with other powers. Is theie auvihin: in the cnarscter or condition of this government wl.ich restricts it in the use of this rijiht a common inheritance toal! with'n narrower limits than aie allowed to others? In relation to international rights, the United States ask no more than has been conceded toothers, and will not be contented withies. They put forth no new principles, but claim the full bsnefit of those which are esiabtUhed. Before closing this communication, ihe uudsrsigned will briefly notice ihe complaint of Austria Egainl Captain Ingraham for violating the neutral soil of the Ottoman empire. The right of Austria to call the United States to aecouut for the acts of their agents, tSVct ing the sovereign territorial rights cf Turkey, is not perceived, and they do not acknowledge her right to require any explanation. If anything was done at Smyrna in derogation of the sovereignty uf Turkey, this government, will give satisfactory explanation to ihe Sultan when he shall demand it, and has instructed its Minister resident to make this kuown to him. He is the judge, and the only "ighlful judge, iu this affair, and the injured party loo. He has'iimstigated its meiits, pronnnnrprl ImKiment urrliist Allilrirt j ( quitted the United States: yet, sträng las. it is. Austria has called the Uni.ed ana ! has arrived, alter a full examination of the transaction al Smyrna, and a respectful consideration of the views of the Austrian government thereon, as presented 1 in Mr. Hulsemaiin's note, are, that Ivosz- ! ta, when seized und imprisoned, was ini vested with the nationality of the Tjutted Stales, and thev had. therefore, the right, if they choose to exercise it, to exlend their protection to him; that from international law the only law which can be rightfully appealed lo for rules of action ;n this case Austria could ileriva no authority to obstruct or interfere with the United Stales in the exercise of this right, in effecting the liberation of Koszia; and that Captain Ingraham's interposi lion for his release was. under the peculiar and extraordinary circumstances of the case, right and proper. These conclusions indicate to Mr. Hul. semaun the answer which the undersigned i instructed by the President to mkn to the Emperor of Austria to the demsrui I presented in Mr; ; HuUetvnnn's note