character, seeing that the form of legalization | Koszta; the other question, at least fully as inwhich is affixed to it, and which alone could have portant, is that which has reference to those for invested it with that character, leaves in blank*malities in virtue of which the agents of the both the name of the tribunal before which the United States have deemed themselves authorized declaration of Koszta must have been made, and in urging their pretensions. the name of the clerk who is supposed to be the With regard to the first of these two questions, depositary of the original document, and that, treated in the correspondence which has taken moreover, this pretended legalization has neither place ou the subject between the Internuncio and signature nor official seal attached to it. But the Chargé d'Affaires ad interim of the United even admitting the authenticity of this declara States in Turkey, the Imperial Government tion; and supposing at Koszta could, without adopts entirely the views of Baron de Bruck. violating the laws of his country of his own ac-In our opinion, Koszta has never ceased to be an cord, and without any other formalities, have broken asunder the ties which bind him to his native soil, the text of the document shows that the anthor of it has done nothing more than to declare his intention of becouring a citizen of the United States, and, with that object in view, of renouncing his rights of nationality in the States of the Emperor.

Austrian subject. Everything combines to make the Imperial Government persist in this estimate of the matter. The laws of his country are op posed to Koszta's breaking asunder, of his own accord, and without having obtained permission to expatriate himself from the authorities of that country, the ties of nationality which bind him to it. The very declaration of that refugee on A few days later a new and lamentable episode board the "Huszar," in the presence of the occurred to aggravate the question. On the American Cousul and of the commander of the morning of the 2d of July, the commander of St. Louis," shows that he still considers himself the American sloop-of-war St. Louis," Mr. as a subject of the Emperor. In short, even acIngraham, sent a message to the commanding cording to terms of the law of the Union, such a officer of the "Huszar," fo the effect that, in pur-declaration, supposed to have been signed by suance of instructions received froin the Chargé Koszta, and from which Mr. Brown has pretend d'Affaires of the United States at Constantinople,ed to infer his naturalization in the United States, he had to call upon him to deliver the aforesaid is not sufficient to produce that effect. The u Koszta into his hands; adding that if he did not dersigned thinks he may dispense entering into receive a satisfactory answer by 4 o'clock in the any further details in regard to this question, seeafternoon, he should cause the prisoner to being that the Department of State of the United taken away by main force. As it was reasonable States constantly refuses to grant passports to to expect, our cominander, instead of complying individuals who find themselves in this category, with this request, prepared himself to repul-e and that official publications have been made fi omn force by force; and when, at the hour designated, time to time to that effect. the American commander, getting ready to carry As there can be no doubt, therefore, concerning out his threat, ranged himself alongside our ves- the quest on of nationality, the Consul-General sel, and brought his guns to bear upon the im- of the Emperor at Smyrna was without doubt perial brig, and was about to carry matters to the perfectly justified, when, in virtue of those last extreinity, our brave sailors, although much treaties, which subject Austrian subjects in inferior in numbers, were deterinined to oppose Turkey to consular jurisdiction, he seized the a vigorous resistance to the act of aggression person of Koszta within the pale of his juriswhich was on the point of being consummated in the neutral port of Smyrna, and on the part of a vessel-of-war belonging to a power with which Austria was at peace. Our Consul-General only succeeded in preventing this bloody catustrophe, which would probably have ended in the destruction of a considerable portion of the town of Smyrna, and of vessels of all nations in the But, apart from this question of jurisdiction, it harbor, by consenting that Koszta should tem- is especially the mode adopted by the functionaporarily, and until the settlement of the difficulries of the United States, in order to settle the ties of which he was the subject, be confided to matter, which has given the Imperial Govern the custody of the Consul-General of France at ment the most legitimate grounds of complaint. Smyrna,

The return of Mr. Marsh to Constantinople, a few days after these events, brought on a discussion, between himself and our Internuncio, of the question whether Martin Koszta was to be considered as an Austrian subject or as a citizen of the United States. Although still ignorant of this discussion, the Imperial Government has come to the determination not to delay any longer addressing itself to the Government of the United States through my instrumentality, There are two distinct questions involved in this discussion, One is the main question relating to the dispute about the rights of jurisdiction which has risen between the legations of Austria and of the United States at Constantinople, concerning

* Literal-makes no mention of either.-Translator,

diction.

Such being the case, the Imperial Government trusts that the Government of the United States will hasten to instruct its Consul at Smyrna not to interpose any obstacle to the extradition of the aforesaid Koszta by the Consul-General of France to the Consul-General of Austria at Smyrna,

The act of violence which the commander of the sloop-of-war "St. Louis" committed against the Austrian brig “Huszar"—that real act of war, committed in full peace, in a neutral port, the fatal effects of which were only averted by the prudence and moderation of our Consul-General at Smyrna-constitutes an outrage upon the principles of the law of nations; and the Imperial Government has no doubt but that this er, viewed in such light, will have been condeurned by the Government of the United States. suid Government being itself interested in preventing the repetition of similar occurrences.

The events of the 2d of July at Smyrna, present, in a two-fold point of view, a serious deviation from the rules of international law.

1st. The commander of the United States sloop

of war "St. Louis threatened that the brig of his Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty, the Haszar," with a hostile attack, by bringing his gun to bear upon the latter, and by announcing, in writing, that if a certain individual detained on board, whose nationality bad been discu-sed between the agents of the two Governments, was not delivered over to him at a stated hour, he would go and take him Hin force.

voice of an undertaking so injurious to her dignity and to her rights.

neutral ports, the absolute prohibition from comnitting, in such ports, acts of war and of violence. even against the enemy with whom we are at open war. Modern history furnishes but few examples of cases of this kind. One of these rare instances is the attack upon the Dutch East India fleet, which had taken shelter in the port of Bergue, in Norway, by the admiral commanding the forces of the enemy; and although that There can be no dough put that the threat of attack was repulsed by the guns of the fort of attacking, by main torce, a veseel-of-war belong-that neutral port, Vattel-an Huthority universally ing to the military marine of a sovereign State, recognised in anatters relating to the law of m whose Tag she carries, is nothing else than a tions-does nevertheless accuse the neutral pow threat of an act of war. Now, the right ofer (Denmark) of having complained in too faint making war is necessarily, and from the very pature of that right. inherent in the sovereign power "A right of so inomentous a nature," In order the better to establish the concurrence says Vattel (Law of Nations, vol. 2, book 3, chap. of all nations, and the unanimity of all expound1,34) the right of judging whether the nation ers of civil law on this question, we can quote has real grounds of complaint; whether he is the authority of an American statesman. The suthorized to employ force, and justifiable in following is the opinion of Mr. Henry Wheaton: laking up arms; whether prudence will admit of "The rights of war," says he (Elements of Intersuch a step, and whether the w lfare of the State national Law, part IV., chap. IIL, § 7), “can be requires it-that right, I say, can belong only to exercised only within the territory of the bel the body of the nation or to the sovereign, herligereut powers, upon the high seas, or in a ter representative, it doubtless one of those rightsritory belonging to no one." Hence it follows without which there can be no salutary government, that hostilities can not lawfully be exercised withand which are therefore called rights of majesty, in the territorial jurisdiction of the neutral state, The founders of the republic of the United which is the common friend of both parties,” Stats fully recognised, from the beginning of Then, § 9: "Not only are all captures made by the Union, the rights reserved to the sovereign the belligerent cruisers within the limits of this power. The articles of perpetual confederacy jurisdiction absolutely illegal and void, but capand union between the states of New Hampshire,tures made by armed vessels stationed in a bay Massachusetts, &c., of 1778, contain already the or river, or in the mouth of river, or in the following stipulation (IX., § 1) :

L

"The right of declaring war and to make peace shalt belong solely and exclusively to the Congress of the United States."

This basis of the public law of the United States was preserved and sanctioned by the constitution of the United States of 1787, which reserves the power of declaring war explicitly to Congress, (section VIII.)

Upon this point, the constitution of the United States harmonizes perfectly with the public law of Europe.

But this right, reserved to the supreme power of each country, would become illusory and null, if commanders of naval forces or others were to bexplicitly or tacitly authorized to undertake, either of their own accord, or upon the order or with the consent of a diplomatic or consular agent, to commit acts of aggression and of war against the vessels or the troops of another nation. without special instructions from the supreme authority of their own country, notified in the forms preescribed by the law of nations.

harbor of a neutral state, for the purpose of exercising the rights of war from this station, are also invalid. Thus, where a British privateer stationed itself within the river Mississippi, in the eutral territory of the United States, for the purpose of exercising the right of war from the river, by standing off and on, obtaining inforumtion at the Balize, and overhauling vessels in their course down the river, and made the capture in question within three English miles of the alluvial islands formed at its mouth, restitution of the captured vessel was decreed by Sir W. Scott So, also, where a belligerent ship, lying within neutral territory, made a capture with her boats out of the neutral territory, the capture was held to be invalid; for though the hostile force em ployed was applied to the captured vessel lying out of the territory, yet no such use of a neutral territory for the purpose of war is to be permitted."

If all hostility against an enemy declared to be within the territorial jurisdiction of a neutral state, which has friendly relations with both parties, is severely condemned by all writers on inIt is impossible that the regular government-ternational law; if captures made by belligerent of the civilized world can wish to expose their cruisers in the bays of a neutral state, or even authority, as wellas general pace, to the liazards by the boats of the vessels stationed there out of of hostilities commenced without their knowl-that territory, are null and illegal, according to edge and without ecial authority from the the laws of the United States and the decrees of sovereign power, by such or such funct-onary, in the maritime courts of Great Britain, an attack a foreign land. upon a vessel belonging to a friendly power in a neutral port would deserve to be censured in still more severe terms.

2ndly. This act of hostility has been committed in a neutral port of a power friendly to both naticns.

The history of maritime wars at the period of Certainly, if there be one point of maritime the French revolution furnishes abundant proots and international law which is clearly and posi-of the very particular jealou-y with which the tively defised, and which has been adopted by all government of the United States maintained the powers of the world, it is the inviolability of rights of neutrals; and the undersigned would

the

cite some celebrated cases, in which the first Koszta, with many others engaged in the same statesmen of the Union, the most distinguished cunse, fled from the Austrian dominions, and predecessors of Mr. Marcy in the high position took refuge in Turkey. The extradition of these which he fills. have defended the absolute invio fugitives, Koszta among them, was demanded lability of neutral ports, by means of most elabo- and pressed with great vigor by Austria, but rate arguments. But as the undersigned is fully firmly resisted by the Turkish government. They persuaded that the same doctrines will serve us were, however, confined at Kutahia, but at length guides to the government of the United States or released, with the understanding, or by express the present occasion, he confines himself to this agreement of Austria that they should leave Turslight allusion to those principles, which were for- key and go into foreign parts. Most of them, it merly maintained, and very recently supported is believed, before they obtained their release, by the government of the United States in rela-indicated the United States as the country of their tion to the rights of neutrals, and more especially exile. It is alleged that Koszta left Turkey in in regard to the inviolability of neutral ports.

The imperial government entertains too high an opinion of the sense of justicend of integrity of the government of the United States to doubt for a single instant its anxiety to disavow the conduct of its agents, under the circumstances above mentioned, and that it will hasten to call them to a severe account, and tender to Austria a satisfaction proportionate to the inagnitude of the outrage.

The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to offer to the Secretary of State the renewed assurance of his high consideration,

HULSEMANN.

The Hon. WM. L. MARCY,
Secretary of State of the United States.

Mr. Marcy to Mr. Hulsemann.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, September 26, 1853. The President has carefully considered the note of Mr. Hulsemann, Chargé d'Affaires of his Majesty the Emperor of Austria, of the 29th ultimo, addressed to this departinent, and the other documents relative to the much-regretted occurrences at Smyrna in June and July last, with a view to ascertain the nature of the complaints therein preferred against the American officers engaged in that affair, and for the purpose of giving such satisfaction as Austria night be entitled to receive in case he should find that these officers had not duly respected her rights.

company with Kossuth-this is believed to be a mistake; and that he engaged never to return— this is regarded as doubtful. To this sentence of banishment-for such is the true character of their expulsion from Turkey-Austria gave her consent: in truth, it was the result of her efforts to procure their extradition, and was accepted by her as a substitute for it. She had agents of commissioners at Kutahia to attend to their em. barkation and to her the legal consequences of this act are the same as if it had been done di rectly by herself, and not by the agency of the Oftoinan Porte. Koszta came to the United States and selected, this country for his futurehome.

On the 31st of July, 1852, he made a declara. tion under oath, before a proper tribunal, of his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and renounce all allegiance to any other state or sovereign,

After remaining here one year and eleven months, he returned, on account, as is alleged, of private business, of a temporary character. to Turkey in an American vessel, claimed the rights of a naturalized American citizen, and offered to place himself under the protection of the United States Consul at Smyrna. The Consul at first hesitated to recognize and receive him as such ; but afterwards, and some time before his seizure, he and the American Churgé d'Affaires ad interim at Constantinople, did extend protection to him, and furnished him with a Tezkereh-a kind of passport or letter of safe conduct, usually given Though differing very much from the views by foreign consuls in Turkey to persons to whom presented by Mr. Hulsemann on behalf of his they extend protection, as by Turkish laws they government, the President still indulges the hope have a right to do. It is important to observe that the exposition of the principal reasons on that there is no exception taken to his conduct which his own conclusions are founded will in-after his return to Turkey, and that Austria has duce his Majesty's government to look at the transaction in a different light from that in which it is presented by that government.

not alleged that he was there for any political object, or for any other purpose than the trans action of private business. While waiting, as is It is the duty of the undersigned to present alleged, for an opportunity to return to the Unithese reasons to Mr. Hulsemann, and he will fail ted States, he was seized by a band of lawless in his intention if, in performing this duty, hemen-freely, perhaps harshly, characterized in does not evince a friendly spirit, and avoid, as the despatches as "ruffians," "Greek hirelings." far as it can be done without impairing the full "robbers"-who had not, nor did they pretend strength of the case, the introduction of topics to have, any color of authority emanating from to which either Mr. Hulsemann or his govern-Turkey or Austria, treated with violence and ment can take exception. cruelty, and thrown into the sea, lininediately thereafter he was taken up by a boat's crew, lying in wait for him, belonging to the Austrian brig. of-war, the Hu-zar, forced on board of that ves sel, and there confined in irons. It is now avowMartin Koszta, by birth a Hungarian, and of ed, as it was then suspected, that these desperacourse an Austrian subject at that time, took an does were instigated to this outrage by the Aus open and active part in the political movement trian Consul-General at Smyrna; but it is not of 1848-49, designed to detach Hungary from pretended that he acted under the civil authority the dominion of the Emperor of Austria. At the of Turkey, but, on the contrary, it is admitted close of that disastrous revolutionary movement, I that, on application to the Turkish governor at

To bring out conspicuously the questions to be passed upon, it seems to the undersigned that the facts should be more fully and clearly stated than they are in Mr. Hulsemann's note.

Smyrna, that magistrate refused to grant the of opinion as to the nature and obligations of alAu-trian consul any authority to arrest Koszta. legiance. By some it is held to be an indestructThe consul of the United States at Smyrna, as ible political tie, and though resulting from the soon as he heard of the seizure of Koszta, and the mere accident of birth, yet forever binding the Chargé d'Affaires of the United States ad interim subject to the sovereign; by others it is considat Constantinople, afterward interceded with ered a political connection in the nature of a civil the Turkish authorities, with the Austrian Con- contract, dissoluble by mutual consent, but not sul-General at Smyrna, and the commander of so at the option of either party. The sounder the Austrian brig-of-war, for his release, on the and more prevalent doctrine, however, is, that ground of his American nationality. To support the citizen or subject, having faithfully perform this claim, Koszta's original certificate of having ed the past and present duties resulting from his made, under oath, in a court in New York, a de- relation to the sovereign power, may at any claration of intention to become an American tine release himself from the obligation of allecitizen, was produced at Smyrna, and an imper-giance, freely quit the land of his birth or adop fect copy of it placed in the hands of the imperial tion, seek through all countries a home, and scAustrian Internuncio at Constantinople, The lect anywhere that which offers him the fairest application to these officers at Smyrna for his prospect of happiness for himself and his pos 1 beration, as well as that of Mr. Brown, our terity. When the sovereign power, where over Chargé d'Affaires, to Baron de Bruck, the Aus- it may be placed, does not answer the ends for trian minister at Constantinople, was fruitless, which it is bestowed, when it is not exerted for and it became notorious at Smyrna that there was a settled design on the part of the Austrian officials to convey him clandestinely to Trieste a city within the dominion of the Emperor of Austria. Opportunely, the United States sloop of-war, the St. Louis, under the command of The conflicting laws on the subject of allegiance Captain Ingrahram, arrived in the harbor of are of a municipal character, and have no con. Smyrna before this design was executed. The trolling operation beyond the territorial limits commander of the St. Louis, from the represen- of the countries enacting them. All uncertainty tation of the case made to him, felt it to be his as well as confusion on this subject is avoided by duty, as it unquestionably was, to inquire into the giving due consideration to the fact that the parvalidity of Koszta's claim to Americau protection, ties to the question now under consideration are He proceeded with deliberation and prudence; two independent nations, and that neither hus and discovered what he considered just grounds the right to appeal to its own municipal laws for for inquiring into Koszta's claim to be discharged the rules to settle the matter in dispute, which on account of his American nationality. During occurred within the jurisdiction of a third indethe pendency of this inquiry, he received notice pendent power,

the general welfare of the people, or has become oppressive to individuals, this right to withdraw rests on as firm a basis, and is similar in principle to the right which legitimates resistance to ty ranny.

of the design to take Koszta clandestinely, before Neither Austrian decrees nor American laws the question at issue was settled, into the domin-can be properly invoked for aid or direction in ions of the Emperor of Austria. As there was this case, but international law furnishes the rules other evidence of bad faith besides the discovered for a correct decision, and by the light from tins design of evading the inquiry, Captain Ingraham source shed upon the transaction at Smyrna are demanded his release, and intimated that he its true features to be discerned, should re-ort to force if the demand was not Koszta being beyond the jurisdiction of Austri4, complied with by a certain hour. Fortunately, her laws were entirely inoperative in his case, however, no force was used. An arrangement unless the Sultan of Turkey has consented to was made by which the prisoner was delivered give thein vigor within his dominions by treaty to the custody of the French Consul-General, to stipulations. The law of nations has rules of its be kept by him until the United States and Aus-own on the subject of allegiance, and disregards tria should agree as to the manner of disposing generally all restrictions imposed upon it by of him. municipal codes. This full statement of the facts is deemed im- This is rendered most evident by the proceedportant, as it will correct some errors and aid in ings of independent states in relation to extradipresenting with more distincess the questions tion. No state can demand from any other, as a to be discussed. matter of right, the surrender of a native-born The undersigned will now proceed to present or naturalized citizen or subject, an emigrant, the views of the President upon this transaction, or even a fugitive from justice, unless the demand and his reply to these several demands. is authorized by express treaty stipulation. InHis imperia majesty demands that the govern-ternational law allows no such claim, though ment of the United States shall direct Koszta to be delivered to him; that he shall disavow the conduct of the American agents in this affair, call them to a severe account, and tender satisfaction proportionate to the outrage.

comity may sometimes yield what right with holds. To surrender political offenders (and in this class Austria places Koszta) is not a duty; but, on the contrary, compliance with such a deinand would be considered a dishonorable sublà order to arrive at just conclusions, it is serviency to a foreign power, and an act meritnecessary to ascertain and clearly define Koszta'a ing the reprobation of inankind. As rendering political relation with Austria and with the United needless all further argument on this point, the States when he was first seized at Smyrna. This undersigned will recall to Mr. Hulsemann's recis the first point which naturally presents itself ollection what took place in 1849 and 1850 in refor consideration, and perhaps the most impor-lation to the reclamation of Polish refugees in tant one in its bearings upon the merits of the case. Turkey by Ruesia, and Hungarian refugees (of There is grent diversity and much contusion whom Koszta was one) by Austria. This de

mand was made in concert, as it were, by two the notice of the undersigned, but he has forborne powerful sovereigns while their triumphant arto quote them on account of the unworthy inies, which had just put an end to the revolu- motive ascribed therein to the powers making tionary movement of Hungary, stood upon the the demand, and the harsh epithets by which borders of Turkey, with power to erase her their conduct is characterized. name from the list of nations. She might well It is an incident of great significance, and bearapprehend for herself, as the nations of Western ing authoritatively upon some of the most imEurope apprehended for her, that a refusal in portant questions now raised, that the case of her critical condition would put in jeopardy her Koszta (for he was one of the Hungarian refu existence as an independent power; but she did gees then demanded) was fully discussed in 1849. refuse, and the civilized world justified and com- not only by the parties, but throughout Europe. mended the nct. Both Austria and Russin placed and decided against the right of Austria to retheir respective demands on higher grounds than quire his extradition, either under the law of na a right of extradition under the law of nations; tions or by existing treaty stipulations. This they attempted to strengthen their claim by decision deeply interested not only rulers and founding it upon the obligations of existing trea-statesnien, but the great body of the people of ties-the same, undoubtedly, that are now urged upon the consideration of the United States, Russia and Austria, however, both submitted to the refusal, and never presumed to impute to Turkey the act of refusal as a breach of her duty or a violation of their rights.

every country. They investigated its merits, admitted its justice, and commended the firmness and humanity of the Sultan for his course.

It is to be regretted that this claim for the sur render of Koszta and his companions, so fully considered then and so signally overruled, should To show that the very same claims to rights be again revived by Austria under circumstances now set up in this case were overruled and re- which make the United States a reluctant party pudinted in 1849 and 1850, the undersigned will in the controversy. The claim has been repu refer to the cotemporaneous views of eminent diated by the general judgment of Europe, and statesmen in regard to the conduct of the Sultan this Government is unable to discover any suthiin refusing to surrender, on the demand of Aus-cient reason for dissenting from that decision. tria and Russia, the Hungarian and Polish refu- Austria appears to have been aware that her gees, who were claimed by these powers us rebels

and traitors.

right to seize Koszta could not be sustained by international law, and she has attempted to deSir Stratford Canning, the British embassador rive it from certain treaties, or♦" ancient capitu. at Constantinople, entirely approved of the Sul- latious by treaty and usage." The very slight tan's course on that occasion-indeed, he advised and inexplicit manner in which this authority is it. In a letter to his Government, dated the 3d adverted to in Mr. Hul emann's note, apparently of September, 1849, he says: "On grounds of indicates, if not u want of confidence in it, at humanity, not unmixed with considerations as least a desire not to have it scrutinized. If there affecting the Porte's character and future policy, really was such an authority, and it was of such I have not hesitated to advise a decided resist- extraordinary character as it is assumed to be. ance to the demand of extradition." From it would have constituted, as Austria minst have another letter of this embassador, dated the 17th clearly seen, the main strength of her case, and of December, commenting on ant commending she would not have referred to it in such a manthe courageous firmness of the Sultan in refusinger as to leave the very existence of it open to the demand of these powerful Emperors for the doubt or question. The paragraph referring to it surrender of these fugitives, on the same preis the following:tence as now set up by one of them to justify the seizure of Koszta, this extract is taken :

"As there can be no doubt, therefore, concerning the question of nationality, the Consul-General of the Emperor at Smyrna was without doubt perfectly justified when, in virtue of those treaties which subject Austrian subjects in Turkey to consular jurisdiction, he seized the person of Koszta within the pale of his jurisdiction."

"Allow me to add, my lord, that in proportion as I admire the courageous firmness with which the Sultan and his Government have determined to make this stand in the cause of humanity and of the rights of honor and dignity, against a demand alike objectionable in substance and in form, I feel If there be such treaties conferring such a a deepening anxiety for the result of their resist-power, with such extraordinary means of enance, and for the degree of support which her Majesty's Government and that of France, may find themselves at liberty to afford, not only in the first instance, but in still graver circumstances, should the present partial rupture unfortunately assume a more serious and menacing character."

In these views, the French Minister resident at Constantinople fully concurred, and so did the British and French Governments; and both were prepared to espouse the cause of Turkey, if her humane and honorable course in refusing these unwarrantable demands, had provoked the resentment and brought down upon her the hostilities of these mighty potentates. The opinions of other distinguished men, approving of the decision of the Emperor of Turkey in refusing to surrender the Polish and Hungarian refugees, both on the ground of humanity and right, have fallen uuder

forcing it, strange indeed it is that moře proininence is not given to the fact in Mr. Hulsemanu's communication. Why are the dates of these treaties withheld? What is still more important, why is not the language conveying this authority quoted? The undersigned is constrained, for reasons he will briefly assign, to question the ac-. curacy of the interpretation which derives the right claimed in the above paragraph from any existing treaty between Austria and the Ottoman Porte.

The Austrian Internuucio at Constantinople, in a conference with Mr. Marsh. the American Minister Resident, spoke of such a right as derived from "ancient capitulations by treaty and usage." It is not shown or alleged that new treaty stipulations since 1849 have been entered into by Turkey nud Austria. The ancient ca