Edwardsville spectator. [volume] (Edwardsville, Ill.) 1819-1826, 1824-08-24

States, in consideration Of the aggrayat-
ed nature OF the crime, as acknow lodged
by their laws, which would be thus sub
mitted to a foreign Jurisdiction. But it
was precisely because the jurisdiction
foreign that the objection was taken to
the trial by mixed commissions and
il ii transcribed The constitutional ao-
thority OF the government of the United
States TO subject the persons, properly,
and reputation, OF their citizens, to the
decisions Of court partly composed Of
their own counlrymen, it might seem
needless TO remark, that the constitu-
iional objection could not diminish, in
proportion as its cause should increase,
or that the power incompetent to make
/ American citizens amenable to a court
consisting one-half of foreigners, should
be adequate TO place their liberty, their
fortune, and their fame, at the disposal
of tribunals entirely foreign. l would
further remark, that the sentence of a
Court of Admiralty, in the country of the
captor, isnot the ordinary uay by which
the merchant vessels OF one nation, TAX
en- on the high seas, by the officers OF
another are tried in the time Of peace.
, There is, III the ordinary way, not right
whatever existing, to take, to search, or
even to board them and take this oc-
caslon to express the great satl, action
with which we have seen this principle
solemnly recognized by the recent de-
cision OF British Court of Admiralty.
Nor is the aggrav alton OF the crime for
The trial of which tribunal may be in
stituted, cogent motive for asserting
TO the principle of sublec,ing Am erican
citizens, their rights and interests, TO the
decision oi foreign courts; for, although
Great Bf!ain, as you remark, may be
willing 10 abandon those OF her subjects
who defy the laws and tarnish the char
acter ol their country, by participating
in this trade, TO The dispensation OF JUS
tice even by foreign hands, the United
States arc bound to remember that the
power which enables court 10 try the
|, guilty, authorizes Them also to pro
Dounce upon the fate of the innocent !;
and that the very question OF gniH or in
nocencc is that which the protecting
care Of their constitution has reserved
for the citizens of this Unien, to the ex
, elusive decision OF their own country
men. This princlp has not been de-
| parted from by the statute which has
branded the slave trader with the name,
, and doomed HIM to the punishment Of a
: pirate. The distinction between piracy,
| by the law OF nations, and piracy by sta
tute, is we'll known and understood III
Great Bril-. in; and while the former
subiec, the transgressor guilty of ii, to
the jurisdiction OF any and every country
into which he may be brought, or where
in he may be taken, the latter forms a
part of the municipal criminal code o.
the country where it is enacted, and can
be tried only by It's own courts.
There remains the suggestion, that
The slave trader, captured under the mo-
,usl concession OF the power to make
the capture, might be delivered over
10 the jurisdiction oil his own country.
This arrangement would not be liable to
the constitutional objection, which must
ever apply to the jurisdiction OF the mix
ed commission, or ofthe admiralty courts
; IF the caplor; and if your note is TO BE-
understood as presenting 1t in the char
acter OF an alternative, to which your
government is disposed TO accede, am
authorized to say, that the Prcslden,
considers it as sufficient to remove the
lnsuperable obstacle which bad preclud
ed The assent of the United States to the
former proposals OF your government,
resulting from the character aud COM
position of the tribunals, 10 whom the
question Of guilt or innocence was to be
committed.
The objections to the right of search,
as Incident to the right Of detention and
capture, are also in very considerable
degree, removed by the introduction OF
the principle that neither OF them should
be exercised, but under the responsible
,y of the captor to the tribunals OF the
aptured party, in damages aud costs.
This guard agains, the abuses OF pow
err 50 liable to abuse, would be indlspen-
sible; but, if the provisions necessary Tor
securing, effectually, its practical cope
ration, would reduce the right itself to
power merely nominal, the stipulation
tit in treaty would serve rather to
mark the sacrifice of a great and pre-
cious principle, than to attain the end
for which it would be given up.
| In the objections heretofore disclosed
to the concession desired, Of the mutual
and qualified right OF search, the princi-
pal stress was laid upon the repugnance