Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1839-04-19
ARGUME NT OF MR.. ADAMS IN
THE CASE OF HOLMES.

fres'uent having dec'ined 10 act through an aedge
want OF power. has preferred formal request {
the Governor OF Vermont, desiring that according 4
the comfy that prevails among civilized nations
the said Holmes may be delivered TO tie CANADIAN
authorities for trial according to the laws Of TIN
province.
The inquiry is Important not only as il may Of
iect the accused, but on account Of the principle
involved, and the hearing it may have upon til,
character of the nation and The continuance OF ou
friendly relations.
That the public authorities Of Vermont are dis
posed to lend all needluI aid in The punishment
henous Offences must not be subject of debate ant
IL on consideration the request made shall no
be granted, it will lie admission that there is nc
power 10 the government Of the United Staies MOI
in that of the states, competent to the discharge Of
what has hitherto been considered of the clear.
est Of national duties. This would be "A subject OF
deep modification, and before we allow reproac,
of such imbecilily to he rghlllly fastened upon us
we ought to search long and earnestly and be
clearly satisfied that there is some signal defect in
the organization Of our government.
The subject may in few words be cleared of some
minor considerations. There can be no objection
10 The form Of the request. II is made with tina,
neatness and promieiy, which usually characerizes
the public acts of the Canadian authorities. The
evidence of guilt is found IN Indictment preferred
by the Grand Jury Of the district where the murder
was committed. Ii is for an offence which all ma
tons punish as a crime Murder is an offence
against the human race, prohibited b, The voice OF
the Almighty. "Ihou shat not Ill.," is the pro.
hibiton given in the ihundcrs OF Sinai, and no leo.
isaton OF man can limit The command or impair lis
force.
The proceeding is national in its character, The
request is preferred by the Governor of a province
in the name Of the people Of that province 10 the
Governor Of an independent state. The RICH, Of
preierrng sucn request and the duty Of compliance
ire questions resting on the rules and principles of
International law.
There arc three general aspects in which the sub.
ject NAV be viewed, each clearly indicating the rel.
alive rights and duties existing between the prov.
ince OF Canada and the state of Vermont,
The provisions of the laws Of nations and their
binding force by their own proper vigor.
Their binding force as part fihe common law
which has been adopted by statute in Vermont.
The rights and duties created by the ,Innter.
rupted usage that has prevailed between the CO.
vernmcnis.
The provisions Of the laws of nations are clear
and explicit. subject TO doubt or contradiction
among The writers on public law. Va,,e declares
the doctrine in strong and unequivoca terms: As.
sassins, incendiaries, and robbers are seized
eUery ,ohere at the desire of the sovereign in
the place Dhere the crime icas committed and
delivered up to justice. This is done on The prn.
cpe that injury TO citizen ia an offence against
the stae and that refusal to surrender fugitive
would make the government a party TO The offence
and that Il repetition of such acts would be good
cause OF war.
This doctrine has been repeatedly recognized and
enforced by the highest Judicial authority in Eng.
land, may be seen by referring 10 tile cases in
the first Of Strange, first of Vezey Sen. and fourth
Of Taunton. II is q lsO an established doctrine in
France, as we learn by a late treatise on public law
by Mr.. Turtot.
The doctrine loses nothing of its force and now
er Of illustration by the decisions Of eminent Jurs,s
in America. Chancellor Kent, in the matter of
Washburne Tin J. c. r. adopted the rule in its
broadesl terms. and has again maintained it in The
first volume of his commentaries. II is almost So.
perfuous to add that this is work of rare excel.
IenCe and OF high authority in The United States.
Oh. ]. Reid, of the e. X. b. in Canada, has
maintained the same doctrine in the matter of Fish.
er, in opinion which does him great credit
as jurisi. Judge Story has maintained n like
doctrine in his commentaries on the constitution,
and in his conflict of laws but it NAV be though,
he has raised doubt by his reference to two Amer
Jean authorities, one in Massachusetts and the other
in Pennsy lvana. The question in II Massachusetts
Reports, was whether a man who had been conyic.
ted of felony in New York, could be admitted TO
testify as II witness in Massachusetts, and il was
decided that he sht The peculiar circumstances
OF that case were well calculated TO induce the
court TO admit the testimony If possible, but the
NSS'S'o'
discussion. The case in Pennsy vania 40 Serp. &
Rawe) is If possible more foreign The point there
ruled was, that man accused Of murder in Ireland
could not he sent out of Pennsyvania on the com.
plant of private individual. This decision com.
mends itself TO the consideration of every fair law
yer; but assuredy it is of no authority for refusing
a demand by one executive upon another and the
remark of CIl. J Reid has great force that. had
the case warranted it, there is reason TO believe
that Judge Iighlman would have decided as he
did in The Of Fisher.
These are the only that can be considered
as even raising doubt and had lhey more d.
rect application, lhev would make but little against
doctrine so long established and so generally ad.
m'''ed but from their remote bearing, il is to be
regretted that Judge Story should have given them
so much prominence by citing them as authorities
In England, the laws of nations are considered
MS part OF the common law, and they are adopted
IN thelr courts, and acted as such. In the case
OF Ir,qnet against Bath, Lord Mansfield asserted
that the laD of nations, in its full ertent, pas
part ofhe ia,o OF Eng land and maintained the
proposition by referring TO The opinons oC Hol,
Talbot. and Ilardwicke. In the case of Hea,hGelj
against Chiffon, he again asserted that the ia,p of
nations is part of the common ia,u of England.
70 Il 4 Bur- Rep,) These decisions are cited viii
appreciation by CHI Kent in the matter OF wash
burne by Oh. J. Reid. in Fishers case, and by the
Supreme Court OF the United States. An impor.
tan case mas recently been decided by that court
illustrating the obligatory character of the laws OF
nations on the states of the Union II was beauti.
fully said by MIR. Webster in that case, in reference
10 The law Of nations, the air oferery judicature
asJuH of tit is part of the universal ia,c.
The common law is adopted by statute in Yer.
mont, and ils influence is universal IN the sate.--
II has become as familiar as household words, and
its loss could not be supplied without changing the
whole habits of of,he people Scarcely proceed.
ing can be had in courts Of justice, without resort
ing TO lis definitions or rules We ndict and pun.
,sh for offences against it, as the case of nuisance
houses OF VI fame, and many others that nigh, be
named. Every intelligent lawyer, will admit It's
pervading influence and beneficial effects and if, as
nave attempted 10 show, The law of nations part
OF me common law, it stands admitted in the first
cnaP'er OF our statute as part Of the necessary law
Of tho state Of Vermont.
The practice Of surrendering fugitive felons has