Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

that individual should throughout have shown himself so unworthy the interest that has been excited, and the efforts that have been made in his behalf; and still more, that his folly, impertinence, and obstinacy, should have been encouraged, if not prompted by the Austrian citizens, who ought rather to have endeavored to inspire him with sentiments of decent respect and gratitude towards the authority which assumed the heavy responsibility of interfering to protect him after he had been abandoned to his fate by the American consulate at Smyrna.

The arrangements made between Mr. Brown and Mr. Wechibacham for Koszta's embarkation was altogether proper, and your refusal to carry them into effect, as well as your general course of action in the whole affair, will be duly reported to the American government, which will, I doubt not, take such notice of your conduct as it merits. I am, sir, &c, your obedient servant,

E. S. OFFLEY, Esq.,

United States Consul, Smyrna.

GEORGE P. MARSH.

No. 62.

Mr. Marsh to Mr. Marcy.

CONSTANTINOPLE, November, 5, 1853.

SIR: I have the honor to enclose herewith a report from Mr. John P. Brown, of the result of his inquiries at the Porte in respect to the circumstances under which Martin Koszta was expelled from Turkey.

The facts stated by Mr. Brown, and those communicated by me in former dispatches, contain all the information I have yet been able to obtain in definite form on the subject.

I think it doubtful whether any written demand was ever made for the expulsion of the refugees from the Turkish territory, (though that supposition is by no means improbable,) but the fact that such a demand was orally made is so notorious here that no person would presume to dispute it at Constantinople.

Negotiations with the Porte are always, in a great measure, oral; and it is only in regard to the conclusion of conventions or treaties, or to matters requiring to be referred for examination to particular bureaus, that written communications are usually made.

While this question was pending, I was in very frequent personal communication with Ali Pacha, then minister of foreign affairs, and well remember that the demand of the expulsion of those persons by Austria was more than once mentioned between us. I must admit, that it was then generally understood at Constantinople, that the refugees so expelled were not to return to Turkey, though I do not know that any written or other formal engagement to that effect was exacted of them. The expulsion was accepted by Austria as a substitute for extradition, and I have no doubt that it was understood by all parties as intended to be perpetual, or that the Porte would have felt itself at all times bound, according to the spirit of the engagement, to re-expel

any of the refugees who should return to the Turkish dominions, after having been sent out of them by the government.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

Hon. W. L. MARCY.

Secretary of State.

GEORGE P. MARSH.

PERA, October 25, 1853.

SIR: I have the honor to report to you, that agreeable to your instructions, I have made inquiries on the subject of the expulsion from the Turkish empire of Mr. Martin Koszta and the other political refugees who were sent, in 1851, in one of the Sultan's steamers of war to England, whence many of them proceeded to the United States.

His excellency Ali Pacha, now not in office, and who was minister of foreign affairs during the period of the Hungarian revolution, and the difficulties growing out of the refuge which the Hungarians, Poles, and Italians found in the Ottoman dominions, informed me a few days since, that after Kossuth, Bathyain, and other Hungarian chiefs were internated at Kutahieh, the Ottoman government "at the desire and with the knowledge of the Austrian government," expelled Koszta and many others from this country, by sending them, as asserted, to England. Many others who remained at Shumla after the removal of the chiefs to Kutahieh, were allowed freely to come to this capital, and it is not known that the Austrian government made any further demand about them. The present first dragoman of the Porte, his excellency Nouel Deu Bey, has made a similar statement to me; i. e., that Koszta and many others of the refugees then at Kutahieh, were expelled from this country at the demand of Austria, or to use his own language, "Eloigné de la Turquie par le desir et avec la connoissance de la legation Autrichienne."

I have been unable to procure a copy of the demands made at this time by the Austrian legation, though the dragoman of the Porte believes that it possibly may be contained in some of the official communications made at the time by the Austrian legation.

I yesterday had a conversation with his excellency Rechib Pacha, now minister of foreign affairs, and who, at the period referred to, was grand vizier. He could not remember whether the persons alluded to were expelled from this country or not at the demand of Austria. He gave me full permission to make inquiries at the bureau of foreign affairs, and that of the grand referendary of the Porte, (Amidgi,) for documentary evidence of the circumstances, but I find the superior members of the bureaux so much occupied with the important question of the present period, that I could not induce them to have the voluminous correspondence examined.

I may add that it is a matter of public notoriety here, that the refugees in question were sent out of Turkey at the demand of the Austrian legation. The Austrian consul general, Michauwish, on the occasion of the affair of Koszta stated to me, (what I believe to be erroneous,) that when they were expelled from Turkey, they inade an

engagement never to return to it again. This statement, made as an argument against the legality of Koszta's return, (and therefore of the legality of his arrest by the Austrian consul general of Smyrna,) goes to show that this expulsion was intended by Austria as an eternal banishment and an expatriation forever, from what she considers as her jurisdiction over all Austrian subjects in the Ottoman empire. She has, consequently, herself severed the bonds which existed between her and the refugees, especially in Koszta's case.

I have the honor to be, sir, with much respect, your obedient ser

vant,

Hon. G. P. MARSH, &c, Therapia.

JOHN P. BROWN.

No. 65.

Mr. Marsh to Mr. Marcy.

CONSTANTINOPLE, December 14, 1853.

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatch, No. 31, of September 27, 1853, and to report that I have fulfilled your instructions.

As I have explained in former dispatches, business with the Porte is in the main transacted orally, and it is not usual to make written communications to the Ottoman government, except in matters of technical negotiation, or where a reference to some bureau is likely to be required.

For this reason, I did not address a note to the department of foreign affairs, but took a convenient opportunity to communicate verbally the contents of your letter to Rechib Pacha, now at the head of that depart

ment.

The Pacha received the communication respectfully, but made no reply. I think myself authorized, however, from previous conversations with the minister of foreign affairs and other eminent personages, to say that the Ottoman government does not feel aggrieved by the course pursued by Mr. Brown and Captain Ingraham; and I do not believe the Porte will be induced, by reasons of state, to express a dissatisfaction which it does not feel.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

Hon. WILLIAM L. MARCY,

GEORGE P. MARSH.

Secretary of State.

[blocks in formation]

In compliance with a resolution of the Senate, a plan for the enlargement and modification of the judicial system of the United States.

MARCH 2, 1854.-Read, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed.

To the Senate of the United States:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 7th of December last, requesting me to present to the Senate the plan referred to in my annual message to Congress, and recommended therein for the enlargement and modification of the present judicial system of the United States, I transmit a report from the Attorney General to whom the resolution was referred.

WASHINGTON, March 1, 1854.

FRANKLIN PIERCE.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE,
February 4, 1854.

SIR: I have the honor to submit, herewith, suggestions regarding the judicial system of the United States, in compliance with resolutions of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, referred to me for this purpose.

The Constitution, with its amendments, contains the following provisions, necessary to be borne in mind, as the basis of all satisfactory consideration of the subject matter.

1. The Constitution.

"ART. III, Sec. 1. The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish.

"The judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior; and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

"ART. III, Sec. 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity, arising under the Constitution, the laws of the United States and treaties made, or which shall be made under their author

ity; to all cases affecting ambassadors and other public ministers, and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more States, between a State and citizens of another State, between citizens of different States, between citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants of different States, and between a State or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens or subjects.

"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

"The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the State where such crime shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may, by law,

have directed."

2. Amendment to the Constitution.

"ART. V. No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service, in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb: nor shall he be compelled, in any criminal case, to be witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

"ART. VI. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained bylaw, andto be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

"ART. VII. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law.

"ART. XI. The judicial power of the United States shall not be considered to extend to any suit in law or equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign State.

Such is the outline of the judicial system of the United States as defined by the Constitution. But these provisions do not designate the number of the judges of the Supreme Court, nor prescribe the organization of the inferior courts, nor the forms and limits, either of place or function, within which their various powers are to be exercised, nor the appointment and authority of the ministerial officers of the law, nor

« AnteriorContinuar »