The Arkansas advocate., 1831-12-14

Ibe western slde Of the river Sf. aobvs
 He deiefdafts appeared 10 Ie nerses.
 hot MatstIng Ii uhderstanaire ala
 efelior, aI.o must have rereeiysd tgs '.
 difference between the ptoeeesi,..s Ss Ss
 lfe American gents lAiessrs I]sa,. 2 s,a '.
 kayanagh] alluded 10, aid thf,t a. eau ] toirgs, which, although tt,ey looI ,.l. g"a1
 oH tie western side ef tie river ssse a'es
 nevertheless expressly founded or sss <. Aet ol the Legislature of Msine. V L,sl 1a
 extended to the whole tefrilosy op bats { l sides of the river, to the extrem,. 'H which il was notorious the Amer;ca.e' claimed as tiiieiI boundary, ard al;. ea'.s would, doubtless have been taken ae' ~
 vantage of as being acts of iurisalet,au... 10 the wleole extent of such claim. Tba learned Judge here repeated what ba jhad stated to the jury on the trial, fE,at
 no such proceedings as those he had al iluded to, either on tie part of the Br;. ] tisil or American authorities, could ba ladfnitted to change the sovereignty and ii,atiotiai character of the place. Thar l ii had new for the second time. bean most satisfactorily proved in this Court, l loHee before in the case Of John Baker,
 that this Province had exercised ar uninterrupted jurisdiction, ever sinca Its first erection, over the Madawasl; settlement. That if tbe time sbonls eyerarrive when this Territory or anv part of il, was to be given up to the Ii States or any foreign country. t|,is circumstance must, and would be an' Ineuaeed by some public act of the Br. 1 tish Government, which would make kaown to the inhabitants the transfer og the eountry, aHd the change of their aI. Elegiance. That until such public acs leame, this court must and would main. Itaiu the jurisdiction it had been aceus. toned to exercise.
 The learned Judge further stated. that there was another considerallop which should have been well weiehed 1 oy the defendants, although proiessine to be American citizens, and therelole hot supposed to feel the same attach.
 saents to the british Grown. even while living within the limits of it's jurisdiction.
 as to the country of their birth. vel
 shonld haze abstained from bringing in.
 10 jeopardy the numerous Frenehinhab. IItaRts of the Maaawaska setilemeat. 1 b3 seducing them from their naturaaE iiegiaHce; these inhabitants were natag- Ial born British subjects, and so far as fthe duties of allegiance were concern. led, stood in the same relation to the Grown, tic Judges os, this Bench. or Iany person in this Court. lie further lsaid, that the doctrine, which flie Court Ihow asserted with respect to the maintaining the actual jurisdiction of ithe Provincial authorities, was the same which it had acted upon in the case of ehn Baker. The correctness of it he conceived was nnguestionable, aid t0
 his knowledge had never been denied by any authority, British or American. The defendants, in the face ol that case, 1 had proceeded to attempta a furthersub. Iversion of that jurisdiction, and aIIhof
 the Court wasnot disposed to inhictup. lon them unnecessary palnsand inconysn Hence yet they must be prepared to bear the final consequences of their ownaeis. The Court in awarding their punish.
 ment, aimed at an effeetual, but al the
 same time temperate assertion of the
 laws, such as it appeared to them inc lease, under all it's consequences, requir- ed; and concluded by pronouhcing the sentence of the Court, as follows:
 That each of the Defendants do pay a fine 10 the King of fifty pounds, and De imprisoned in the Common Gaol of the County for three calender months, and stand committed until the said fines are paid"
 Thus 1t is seen that America citizens lacting under the law of the State, are FINED end IMPRISONED by for, Ieign power!- We wait to see whether Jour Governor has energy for an oeca sion which calls upon him TO ACT,in
 T A