Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1835-12-08

him in fri
purpose be fore stated?
The solution OF this question depends upon that Of
two others lst Has nation, wi,,ss citizen or sii ct
commits crime within its urisd,con and ~ ai,,r
wards found within that Of anotrr right by the law
OF nations upon its demand To have him delivered up by
was committedl 2ndy If such r;rh csis save n
judicial oihcers 81 the United States, surprising ev
dence 10 Ie sufficient authority To act in relation
II, as auxiliary TO The Executive Department
As TO the first point far ain informed the sub
Jet has not been before any of the Federal the
Union The case OF Jonathan Robins is not cxccp-
ton TO this rem N lie indeed request of the
then President Of the u States MIR Adams the elder
delivered by the District Judge of South Carolina to
the British Consul, charge of murder, committed
by him, (Robins) board Of British vessel on the
high seas.
But that case depended upon the 27t, article of the
treaty with Great Britain, made in the year i7.jl by
which agreed that iugitives charged viii murder
OF forgery, committed within the Jurisdiction of either
aho seeking an asylum within any OF the countries of
tie Other should be reciprocally delivered up in the
manner and upon the terms the rein stated
ne question then. in that case il relates to this
point was, whether the fderis of this article had
occurred; whereas IN this case there is no treaty sp
a'on' ana tue question must therefore depend upon the
right oil the Government Of Portugal make the de.
mana, anu the consequent obligation of Government
TO surrender the person charged, independently Of any
treaty or compact between them.
Ihere have, however, been decisions upon the
subject, made by two distinguished luris!s Of our coun
try the by Judge Kent ot New York; the other hv
Chief Justice 1ilghman of Pennsylvania the first AZ.
serng the right: See the in the matter of Daniel
Wasburn, 4ih John. chan. cases. lC6 the other adopt
respects ut different conclusions See Ia. case of Short
rs Deacon, 10th Sergeant and Rawe, 1876 Itbcconrs
necessary then to examine the question upon prnci-
pies iaid down by the writer's public law, rccr-
to the application made of them in the two
Just cited, to the authoritative declarations of our own
government, and generally, TO all the bearings
iations of the sui cct
Gro,ins asserts the right demand, and the consc-
quent obligation surrender all persons CHARGED will,
crimes who have fled another country whether tLrv
are citizens subjects of that country or Foreigners al
though practice it insisted on except IN crimes
tlt Satp nl hair
lesser Grim $, he says they connved at unp OF her
wise agreed on by treaty In this doctrine he follow
ed by Burlanaiui, Heneccius, and Wynne Vat,el as
sers the right and obligation in case of great crimea:
out speaks only as 10 the subjects of the country on
winch the demand is made. And his reasoning applies
To them only; because it is put upon pincle OF tb.
duty oil The Sovereign to prevent his subjects from doing
mischief to other States aud the consrquent duty to
punish surrender. :
Pufendorf ON the contrary, holds the doctrine that
the obligation to deliver up criminal is rather in virtue
Oh some treaty, tnan In consequence of and
indispensable obligation Martens, after stating that
sovereign may punish foreigners who fly to his domn.
ions, after having committed crime in the dorninops
oil another, as we'll as those who commit il in his adds
but IN neither is he perfectly Obliged to send them for
punishment TO their country, not even supuosino
them to have been condemned before their escape lie
says, also, that according to modern custom criminal
is frequently sent back to the place where The crime IL
committed on the request of power arho offers do
ne axe seTree, and that often instances of this
Ward seems strongly to countenance the idea of Pu.n
dorf
have thus given abbre statement of tbcsc v,i
ers OIL public law; detailed whose rea SON.
ing be seen by reference the works or
TO quotations from them, in the before cited from
New fork and Pennsylvania. Thus much was nece,.
sary as basis for my future reasoning Upon the mere
authority OF ioegn Publicss them would appear to be
doubtful whether there was indie pendenty of treaty any
obligation, the part of Government 10 surrender
!" another fugitive from justice TO eide thu es,io
lei US descend from these principles Of abstract writer's
and what has been the practice of Europe in ancient
and modern times. Lord Coke in his Sd Inst 100 n
quote now from 10th Sergeant and Rawlc after express
sing decided opinion against delivering up fugves
to del
hrst, qualified onethe two others, absolute Henry
9TH of England demanded of Ferdinand of Spain The
Earl OF Suffolk, attained of high by Parliament
Ferdinand refused TO deliver him. until Henry promised
not to put him to deathHenry 9Th of England demand
ect and attained Of eason the demand was not COM
piled wth.-Queen Elizabeth demanded of Henry dill.
OF France Morgan and others of her subjects who had
committed treason against her. He replied that all
Kingdoms were free TO fugitives, and was the duty
81 hl9gsio defend every one the liberties of his
Kingdom; and that Elizabeth had long before re.
ceyed Montgomery, the Prince of Condo and other
Prenchmen Chief Justice 1ighmon adds the case of
reTkin Warbeck, who had fled to Scotland, and who
was refused to be delivered, although demanded by
Henry 7th.-Chancellor Kent in the case of Washbur
cites in England as settling the princnlr
and acting ON the practice of suTrenderng fueitiyes
Asto Lundy case that of the King against Kimberley
there cited and the East India Company against Camp
peii Chef Justice Iilghman, in my opinion, gives a
satisfactory answer Ii is-That the Territories where
the crime was committed and to which the criminal fled
were paris OF the same empire, and under one common
sovereign The King of England could have no priv;
iege against the King OF Ireland being and the
person.
lie states, indeed the case OF the King u.s. Hotcbe
son, who was committed a charge of a crime com.
mtted in Portugal, and refused to be bued and who il
was said by Counsel I'm another case) was sent to Por
tugal anu he refers to another mentioned bv Heath
justice the crew of Du ch ship mastered the vessel
and brought her into Deal and it was question whe,
ther they should be seized and 10 Holland Andit
was held that they might and the (he said) had
been the law of all civilized nations
There is subsequent case cited and none is known
10 exist where the British government has
aiugtye On the contrary, Mr. efcrson in his letter
10 PRESIDENT Washington, OF Nov. 7ih l7GI after speak
ing on The subject Of conventions for the delivery of f
giuVes, says England has such convention with
any nation, and their laws have given no power 10 their
executive, to surrender ugitives of any description
they are accordingly, constantly refused and hence
England has been the asylum of the Paolis the La
NOTES, the Caonnes in short of the most 0trocious of.
lenders, as well of the innocent victims who
nave been able TO get there In confederation Of this
Will state, that but the other day that is on the 7h az
November last it stated in the Inelligencer that an
Pcaiion had been made TO the Secretary of the Home
department (EDgand) for warrant to arrest Bowen
Dut u was refused the ground that treaty stipu
on required sucha course, and without IT, il was who'll
W nadinissble The is stated with pariicnlar
w enough however appears 10 shew that was not one
OF tue arocious class mentioned by Grotius; that howe
YER not stated the reason but the want of treatv
stipulation am not prepared to say how far the Sc
cretary acted upon the principle stated in some Of the
DOCKS, mat Governments the practice Of con-
hVng at Tie lesser offences, that the demand was not
made by Government
There Is, indeed, case in Canada in 1920, where
criminal from Vermont delivered the Authorities
oil at state, upon charge of Larceny committed there
upon warrant issued by the Governor Of the Proyince
he was arrested, and abcas Corpus before the Chief
Justice II was held full in his opinion he grounds
hlne, generally upon the authorities and before