The Sun.
London, England, 1841-07-31 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS

FROM TIIE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.
GL6BE.—We do not regard the decision of the New
York Supreme Court, in the case of Mr. aleLeod, as in-
aolvina danger ,of a breach between England and Ante,-
rice. The Federal Government has already distinctly
recognised, through Mr. Webster, the absurdity of the
supposition that the American people can desire to puniSh
en individual for an act of which the responsibility is
assumed as its own by the authorities who had a right to
command his services. From those authorities evidently
and not from Mr. M'Leod personally, satisfaction, If
satisfaction is due, must be sought on the part of the
United States. Whatever disposition local courts have to
stickle for their jurisdiction,itis perfectly evident that such
an exercise of that jurisdiction as should hazard the peace
between two great nations is rather too serious a thing.
We presume that the State of New York is scarcely
competent to make war on England without the autho-
rity and aid of the Federal Power. That Power must,
therefore, be able to control such acts on the part of
Yew York as would be equivalent to a declaration 'of
war with England. It would be too absurd to suppose
that a section of the American people is empowered, un-
controlled, to compromise the whole people with a fo-
reign State. The condition on which a single State is
entitled to defence against foreigners by the arms
oc the whole federation must be (either expressed
or implied) a condition of deference to the Federal
Power on all international questions. The State of
New York cannot combine the advantage of doing
just as it pleases towards foreigners (without responsi-
bilityz either to them or the Federal Power) with
the right of calling on that power for defence against
foreigners. Otherwise, the Government of the Lnitecl
States would be placed in this position towards the rest
of the civilised would—that the several sections of its
citizens might commit any outrage they pleased, might
sanction such outrage by the forms of law, and that the
government of the United States should iave no power
to control their conduct, but should be responsible for
defending its r erpetrators against all hostile conSequenees..
It is clear that responsibility for conduct implies thd
power of controlling it. It New York is not responsible.,
to foreign Powers for its treatment of their subjects,
but the United States are responsible for the acts of
New York, then, at some stage or other, the federal
Government must have the power to prevent such
acts -in the State of New York as would provoke
war with foreaeeners. To suppose otherwise were to sup-
poseeither taat foreigners must put up with whatever a
section of the American people may think fit to do, or
that the United States must espouse the quarrel of that
section of its :population, evea though • the majority
should deem it a rash or unjust one—without having any
power of putting a veto on that rashness or injustice.
These alternatives are plainly absurd ; and there is no
other, except the rational one, that the Federal Govern-
ment, being responsible for the acts of the States to-
wards foreigners, has power to arrest those acts when
they constitute a national provo9ation. It is for the fe-
deral authority of course to judge when that case occurs ;
to deny it the power of interposition at that point is to
defy common sense.
STANDARD.—There has been a rumour afloat
during the last 24 hours, to the effect that the "Deficit"
Ministry have resolved to tender their resignation im-
mediately upon the Queen's return to town. We have
not been able to trace this rumour to any authentic
source ; perhaps it has been suggested by certain con-
versations at Woburn. We, however, do not believe
one word of the story ; we shall not believe the Minis-
ters out until we have seen their successors actually a
week in office, and even then one must not be confident
that the Ladies of the Bedchamber have laid no mine. It
is quite clear from Lord John Russell's manifesto, that
his Lordship did not, 10 clays ago, contemplate retirement
from office, and though her Iliajesty and Lord Mel-
bourne might have lately- had an opportunity of hearing
from the head of the house of Russell more truth and
sounder principles of policy than could be obtained from
Lord John, it is not very likely that the hospitable Duke
of Bedford would use the occasion " to school" the
Sovereign, or to employ arguments to Lord Melbourne
like those by which Jack, in the " Tale of a Tub," is
persuaded to hang himself. As to the Duke of Welling-
ton, who was of the Woburn party, it is well known that
his Grace will not obtrude his advice in such a matter.
The rumour is therefore doubtless to be dismissed as
one of those conjectures which a sense of what ought
to occur builds upon the slightest circumstances.
That Ministers are committing a gross and a very
sordid cheat in retaining office, we have already
sufficiently proved—a cheat parallel to that of which we
read some months ago in the police reports. It was prac-
tised by a fellow who hired himself as a coachman and
groom to a gentleman whose carriage and horses were,
from some cause, in the country. After taking three
months' wages and maintenance, the knave confessed
that he had been a water-side porter, and never handled
a set of reins or a currycomb in his life. Now this is just
what the Queen's Ministers are doing : they are taking
wages and maintenance, upon the pretence of services
walicii they know they never can render. Their Minis-
try legally ended on the 4th of June ; it had virtually
ended more than two years before. They are now frau-
dulently- overholding, not merely for the sake of issues
and profits, but in order to commit waste.
. COURIER.—We could yesterday do no more than
barely allude to the startling nature of the American in-
telligsnee that had just then reached us ; but its subject
matter is too serious, and its probable consequences of
too alarming and awful a character, to be hastily treated
of or aproeched without a full and impartial considera-
tiou of its merits, as well as of the gravely, important
results involved in its issue. The Supreme Court of
the state of New York has given its decision on a'r.
M‘Leed's case, negativing every plea urged for his dis-
charge from custody, and handing him over to be tried-by
an American Jury, upon charges of murder and arson. Into
the grounds upon which the Judges of the Supreme
Court have arrived at this decision, and upon Which they
have professed to rely for its justification in the eyes of
the world, it falls not within the scope of our present
purpose to inquire. There was, however, a sharpness in
the language in which this cleca.aon was couched—au
acrimony closely verging upon vindictiveness—and
display of rancorous zeal utterly at variance with our
notions of the calm, clear, dispassionate purity which
should ever preside over the judgment-seat and charac-
terise its decisions, which we cannot let pass unnoticed.
The one-sidedness of the grounds alleged by the Supreme
Court as constituting the basis of their judgment is not
more palpably visible to •the eye of the lawyer than is
the tone of angry partizanship that pervades the elahes_
rately drawn up document to the mind of the unprofes-
sional reader. And when the Supreme Court of New
York has thus shown itself so pervious to prejudice,
and so sensible to the influence of mob dictation, what
grounds- of hope can the most sanguine entertain that
the trial for which M'Leod has been reserved will be
conducted with any regard either to the demands
of justice, or even the claims of seeming decency ?
The circumstances surrounding his case—the spirit
of fierce hatred towards England which pervades
large classes of the American community=—the un-
restrained license they give their passions—and the
feelings of rankling animosity, as well against the
individual as the country, which have accompanied
his arrest and imprisonment—all combine to preclude
the possibility of any thing like a fair or impartial trial
for the accused. Nothing, to aur minds, appears more
clearly than, be the evidence for the defence what it may
—be the proof of the accused's innocence as strong and
conclusive as the nature of such proofs will allow—that
his arraignment will be followed by conviction, and con-
viction by execution.