Star.
London, England, 1819-01-16 00:00:00

AMKRICAN PAPERS.
'(lttost mit akrntear. nivicisomees.)
A7itit .AND A mak ts'rtit.
a 'When we first heard of the execution of the sen-
tence of death on these miserable men, we "snkseited
At propriety of suspending bur opidions on tliis-gob-
yeet, until the farts Should be officially before
We have laid them before our Readers, and given
time to Make 'up theh opinions, before we Obtruded
upon them nrry sugge:tione of ours on this subject.
"An attentive phrasal of the documetits, and CA-
siderable reflectiort on 'the etibpsct, have confirmed
the opinion we-expressed same months ago, that'ihe
case of these persetts neither required nor permitted
the intervention of the 'British or any other fhteign
'Government. It is then a etudetion Entirely between
ounelves--between the Officers of Gavernmerit'dtd

the.people.
«We wish we could say with equal confidence,
that 'see entirely approve Of the proceedings Of.the
italgt which there men were condemned. We
40 palliate their offence, but to express
our dbubte whether their punishment was proeet:y
administered. We express our thatches on this-sub-
ject with much diffidence. Being ignorant of the
law martial, we are guided to out decision by tills-
blished principles Of national and *of civil law, appli-
cable, we presume, to all criminal trials, by what-
ever court, in our country.
" Arbuthnot merited punishment, ctoubtlest, far
his officious intermeddling with the Indians, and For
having, under pretence of trading with them, and
counselling them to assert their rights, excited them
to hocelities against us. It is another question, whe-
ther his offence was a military one, or properly cog-
nizable by a military tribunal. leis at least certain,
that this person was completely in our power, ar.d
that there was no danger of his escape, or of his
effecting any thing, while in confinement, prejudicial
to the operations of the army. To have him held in
confinement, therefore; subject to the directions of
higher authority, it appears to us, would have been,
if an error at all, an error on the safe side of the
question. With respect to the evidence before the
Court in this case, our respect for the chanicter of
the Officers composing it, obliges us, little conver-
sant as we have professed to be (and may we long
be!) with military law, to presume it was such as
the law admits. And this is all we shall say of it.
" In the case of Ambrister' the evidence is conclu-
sive enough. He was found in arms against tl.e
United States, and pleaded guilty to the charge of
leading the Lower Creeks to battle. He identified
himself with the enemy, and subjected himself 'to
their fate. Bat when taken, did he not become a
prisoner of war, and was he not entitled to the pri-
vileges Of that character? If so, did he become pro-
perly the subject of trial by a Cour t-rnartilsi?
A 4 We are under the impression, that the offences
of both these individuals ware such as it would have
been better net to have committed to the judgment
of a thilitary tribunal ; but having been so Corr:
mitted, that it would have been expedient to have
submitted the sentence, L fore execution, .to the
highest authority known to the Constitution, for
its revision.
" On the pilnciple of retaliation, recognized by
all nations, these persons, we conceive, might have
been lawfully put to death. They had identified
themselves with the Indians ; and, though claiming
themselves to hc Briiish su=ejects. did not proVeihern-
selves to be such, and Vivre, according to oar do:-
trine on the subject of 'allegi.uice •actually expa-
triated. The military practices Of the Indians. con-
trary to the laws of war, the Commanding Ceovral
had a clear right to retidiate. did so in the
of the Indian Chief Francis Iloinathleinee, and
might have done so in the case of Arbutlinoi
Ambrister. In being brought to the bar of a Court-
martial, hriwever, did they not become subject to
the operation of our laws applicable to 'heir ca.,e?—
And is there any law. .on our Statute-book 1, 'Lich
embraces it? The whole subject is full of difficall,y.
14 In regard'to the decision of the General with re-
spect to the sentence on Ambrister, which appe
to have attracted much notice, it is proper to observe,
it was fro doubt dictated by a regard to the wishes of
the prisoner, who preferreJ death to the ignominicus
punishment for which that fate was commuted by it:o
Court. Whether this was a sufficient justification of
the discussion, we shall not undertake to pronout;ce."