Elizabeth-Town gazette., 1819-02-16

I
authorising their execution and he
would, in the third place, make some OBJ
servations upon the mode of proceeding.
The principle assumed by Gen. Jack
son, which may be found in his general
orders commanding the execution oil these
men, is, : that ii is an established prin-
cipie of the law of nations, that any iudl-
vidual oi nation making war against the
citizens Of any other nation, they being at
peace, forfeits his allegiance, and becomes
an outlaw and pirate" Whatever may
be the character of individuals wagins
private war, the principle assumed is to-
tally erroneous, when applied TO such in
diyiduais associated with power, wheth-
er Indian or civilized, capable of main-
tanning The relations of peace and war.
Suppose, however, the principle were
true, as asserted, what disposition
should he have made of these men {?
What jurisdiction, and how acquired, has
The military over pirates robbers and
outlaws ! IL they we're in the character
imputed, they were alone amenable, and
should have been turned over 10 the civ
il authority. But the principle, he re-
peated, was totally Incorrect, when appl-
ed TO men in their situation. A foreigner,
connecting himself with helligcrent, be-
comes an enemy of the party to whom
that beiligerent is opposed, subject to
whatever he may be subject, and entitled
to whateyer he is entitled.-Arhulhnot
and Ambrister, by associating themselves,
became identified with the Indians; they
became our enemies, and we had a right
to treat them as we could lawfully treat
the indians. These positions were so
obviously correct, that he should consider
1t all abuse OF the patience of the commit
tee to consume time in their proof. They
were supported by the practice of all ma
tions, and of our own. Every page of his
tory, in all times, and the recollection of
every member, furnish evidence of theI
truth. Let us look for a moment into
some Of the consequences Of this princi-
pie, if it were to 20 to Europe, sanction
ed by the appreciation, express or impli-
ed, OF this house. We have now in our
armies probably the subjects of almost ev-
cry European power. Some of the na-
tions of Europe maintain the doctrine of
perpetual allegiance. Suppose Britain
and America in peace, and America and
France at war. The former subjects of
England, naturalized or unnaturalized, are
captured by the navy or army Of France
What is their condition? According to
the principle OF Gen. Jackson, they would
be outlaws aod pirates, and liable to i'm.
mediate execution. Were gentlemen pre-
pared to return to their respective dis
tricts, with this doctrine 10 their mouths,
aud to say TO their Irish, English, Scotch,
and other foreign constituents, that you
are liable, Cd the contingency supposed,
| TO be treated as outlaws and pirates
Was there any other principle which
justified the proceeding? On this sub.
iect, he said if he admired the wonderful
ingenuity with which gentlemen sought
colorado pretext for those executions, he
was at the same time shocked at some of
the principles advanced. What said the
honorable gentleman from Massachusetts,
Mr.. Holmes) in cold address to the COM
mittee! Why, that these executions were
only wrong mode Of doing a right thing
In what code ofpublic law; 10 what system
OF ethics; nay, in what respectable novel;
where, ii the gentlemen were to take the
range of the whole literature Of the world,
will he find any ssnctionfor principle so
monstrous ? He would illustrate its enor-
nifty 10 single case. Suppose man,
being guilty of robbery, is tried, con-
demned, and executed for murder, upon
an indictment for that robbery merely.
The Judge is arraigned for having exc
cuted, contrary to law, human being
innocent at heart Of the crime for which
he was sentenced. The Judge has moth
ing TO do, TO ensure his own acquittal, but
to urge the genlIemaD's plea, that he had
done right thing in wrong way
The principles which attached to the
cases of Arbuthnot and Ambrister, con-
stituting them merely participates in the
war, supposing them to have been COM
batants, which the former was not, he hav.
ing been taken 10 a Spanish fortress, with
out arms in his hands, all that we could
possibly have right to do, was to apply
to them the rules which we had right to
enforce against the Indians. Their Eng
lish character was only merged in their
Indian character. Now, If the law regu-
lating Indian hostilities, be established by
long and immemoriaI usage, that we have
no moral right to retaIiate upon them, we
consequently had no right to retaliate up
on Arbuthnot aud Ambrister. Even if it
were admitted that, in regard to future
wars, and to other foreigners, their exc
curion may have good effect it would
aot tI,a,,,a foiIoxv fhaf xuou had a RIGHT tn