act-the taking him from the sea and putting him on board of the Austrian brig of war, the Hussar, and confining him in irons-was precisely of the same character, a wanton and illegal violation of his personal rights. The interference of mere bystanders for his relief, in such a case of oppression and cruelty, could be sustained upon the broad principles of humanity. But the justification of Captain Ingraham's conduct is placed on other and more clearly defined grounds. Whatever may have been Costa's citizenship (not being a subject of the Ottoman Porte) he was, while at Smyrna, a Frank or sojourner, and might place himself under any foreign protection he chose to select, and the Turkish laws respect the rights he thus acquired. He did place himself under the protection of an American consul at Smyrna, and our legation at Constantinople, and was at once clothed with the nationality of the protecting power, and consequently became entitled to be regarded and respected while in that situation as a citizen of the United States. The American consul at Smyrna did nothing more than his duty in claiming for him the protection due to one of our citizens, and Captain Ingraham is justified by his Government for using the means he did for procuring his release from illegal imprisonment. "You are therefore instructed by the President to present these views to the Austrian legation at Constantinople, if Costa has not been released, and to the French consul at Smyrna, if he retains him in custody by virtue of the arrangement made on the subject, as the views of the Government of the United States, and demand that the prisoner be released and restored to the same condition he was in at the time of his seizure in the streets of Smyrna. It is presumed that the Imperial Government of Austria will be very unwilling to do anything which will in any way connect itself with this outrage, and that it will disavow the pretext that the procedure was instigated by it, or has in any manner had its subsequent countenance." Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Marsh, min. to Turkey, No. 27, Aug. 26, See, also, Mr. Marcy to Mr. Marsh, unofficial, Aug. 26, 1853, MS. Inst. "No complaint has reached this Department from the Turkish Government against Commander Ingraham, of the U. S. sloop of war St. Louis, on account of his conduct at Smyrna in June and July last, with reference to the affair of Martin Koszta; and from the tenor of the despatches from your legation such a complaint could scarcely be expected. In the event, however, that this reserve should be occasioned by an apprehension on the part of the Porte that the representations which it might think proper to address to us upon the subject would not be respectfully received, the President directs me to instruct you to assure the Turkish authorities that, if the Sultan's Government should in any way feel aggrieved by the proceedings of Commander Ingraham, this Government will not hesitate, upon receiving a statement of the grounds of the grievance, to take it into consideration, with a view to such redress as the circumstances may call for." Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Marsh, min. to Turkey, No. 31, Sept. 27, 1853, MS. Inst. Turkey, I. 377. "I have just had a full conversation with Baron Gerolt, the Prussian minister, in relation to the case of your brother, Henry D'Oench. The positions maintained by this Department in the case of Koszta will be acted on in all cases to which they may be applicable; but it is apprehended that there are such circumstances of difference in your brother's case as may embarrass the Government in their efforts to procure his discharge. "Prussia regarded him as a fugitive from justice and claimed from the authorities of Hamburg his extradition as a matter of right, and Hamburg yielded to this claim as a matter of duty arising from its political connection with her. Having got possession of his person and brought him within her jurisdiction, as she contends, in a strictly legal manner, she maintains her right to inflict upon him the punishment to which he has been sentenced by the tribunals of the country for a violation of its laws committed while he was a subject of the King of Prussia. The change of national character subsequent to the alleged offense does not release an offender from penalties previously incurred when legally brought within the jurisdiction of the country whose laws have been violated. It may be found that in this respect there is a difference between the case of your brother and that of Koszta. You may, however, be assured that this Government will use all proper means to effect his release." Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. D'Oench, Nov. 16, 1853, 42 MS. Dom. See, to the same effect, Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Thum, Nov. 18, he made a declaration of intention, and sailed for Hamburg on business and to claim an inheritance. July 6, 1852, he was arrested by the Hamburg police and delivered over to the Prussian authorities, by whom he was taken to Silberberg to serve a sentence of two years and nine months' imprisonment. (Mr. Barnard, min. to Prussia, to Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, No. 137, Sept. 13, 1853, 8 MS. Desp. from Prussia.) There is nothing in the consular despatches from Hamburg throwing light on the case, which seems not to have been diverted from the course it had taken. Simon Tousig, a native of Austria, on his return to that country from the United States, was arrested and imprisoned. Mr. Henry R. Jackson, then American chargé d'affaires at Vienna, proposed, on the strength of Koszta's case, to demand his release. Mr. Marcy replied: “Assuming all that could possibly belong to Tousig's case— that he had a domicil here and was actually clothed with the nationality of the United States-there is a feature in it which distinguishes it from that of Koszta. Tousig voluntarily returned to Austria and placed himself within the reach of her municipal laws. He went by his free act under their jurisdiction and thereby subjected himself to them. If he had incurred penalties or assumed duties while under these laws, he might have expected they would be enforced against him, and should have known that the new political relation he had acquired, if indeed he had acquired any, could not operate as a release from these penalties. Having been once subject to the municipal laws of Austria and while under her jurisdiction violated these laws, his withdrawal from that jurisdiction and acquiring a different national character would not exempt him from their operation whenever he again chose to place himself under them." Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Jackson, chargé d'affaires at Vienna, See Mr. Wharton, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Crounse, Aug. 10, 1891, 183 "As this Department grants passports to citizens of the United States only, it certainly recognizes in its representatives abroad no authority to grant them to such as are not citizens. At the same time it does not deny to them the right of extending a certain degree of protection to those possessing only the inchoate rights of citizenship. The nature and extent of this protection, however, must depend in a great degree upon circumstances, and these will vary with almost every case. Thus a foreigner who comes to this country, and, renouncing all allegiance to any other power, declares his intention of becoming a citizen, and afterwards returns to the country of his birth for a temporary purpose only, not losing thereby his domicil here, is clothed with a nationality which entitles him to a greater degree of protection than could properly be extended to one who, as in the case of Mr. Willrich, after declaring his intention to become a citizen of the United States, shortly after departs therefrom, and remains abroad a sufficient length of time to warrant the belief that he has either abandoned that intention or is indifferent about carrying it into effect." Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Vroom, min. to Prussia, No. 13, July 7, 1854, MS. Inst. Prussia, XIV. 218. This instruction, when it speaks of a person "who comes to this country, and, renouncing all allegiance to any other power, declares his intention," makes an assumption the grounds of which are not apparent, since an alien, in declaring his intention to become a citizen, does not renounce his allegiance to any other power, but merely declares his intention to do so. This Government can not rightfully and does not claim of foreign powers the same consideration for a declaration of intention to become a citizen, as for a regular passport. The declaration indeed is prima facie evidence that the person making it was, at its date, domiciled in the United States, and entitled thereby, though. not to all, to certain rights of a citizen, and to much more consideration when abroad, than is due to one who has never been in our country; but the declarant, not being a citizen under our laws, even while domiciled here, can not enjoy all the rights of citizenship either here or abroad. He is entitled to our care, and in most circumstances we have a right to consider him as under our protection, and this Government is disposed and ready to grant him all the benefits he can or ought to receive in such a situation. If such individual, however, afterwards leave this country, repair to another, and there take up his permanent abode, his connection with the United States is dissolved, and his intention to become a citizen must be considered to have been abandoned. Under the circumstances the previous declaration ceases to be available for any purposes whatever. But when a person with a fair intent has made a declaration and goes abroad for any purpose not incompatible with the objects of the declaration, and the legation has certified to the genuineness of his papers, the Government of the United States has done all that can be required or reasonably expected, and can have no just cause of complaint if other governments see fit to refuse to give the same effect to such papers as they usually give to regular passports in the hands of our citizens." Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Jackson, chargé d'affaires at Vienna, See also Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Buchanan, min. to England, "In your No. 232 you desire to be informed as to the extent to which you may afford protection or furnish passports to such persons as have made formal declarations, before the competent authorities. of the United States, of their intention to become citizens, but who have not been legally naturalized. "You state that in these cases you had replied that you could only use (your) friendly offices with the Peruvian Government if (the applicant)' required protection, but that (you) could not interfere officially, as in the case of a citizen of the United States, or of foreigners who had gone through all the formalities required by law to become naturalized.' "The Department approves of the position you have assumed in this respect, and also of your course in refusing to grant passports to such persons except to enable them to return to the United States; inserting the condition that they were to proceed direct to some port or place within the territories of the Union, or otherwise the passport to be void after a stipulated time.' "But, that no misapprehension may arise with regard to the precise attitude of the Department in relation to this subject, I embody 'here an extract from an instruction addressed to our minister at The Hague, on the 9th December last, by which you will be guided in all similar contingencies: "In your No. 4 enquiry is made whether you are to restrict the granting of passports entirely to American citizens. As this Department grants passports only to bona fide citizens of the United States, and as a passport is nothing more than a certificate of citizenship, it follows, as a matter of course, that you can with propriety give a passport neither to an alien who may have become domiciled in the United States, nor to a foreigner who has merely declared his intention to become an American citizen. Both of these classes of persons, however, may be entitled to some recognition by this Government. The most that can be done by you for them is to certify to the genuineness of their papers when presented for your attestation, and when you have no reasonable doubts of their authenticity. The European authorities may pay such respect to these documents as they may think proper. Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Clay, min. to Peru, No. 23, Dec. 28, 1854, After the passage above quoted, Mr. Marcy answered an inquiry as to |