Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1839-04-19

laws of nations, furnished by The surrende
of the fclon now demanded of Us. TN
Governor OF the state has now an opportu
nifty of giving an evidence Of his devoti 10
TO national law. that can never be Oblltera
ted.
II is sometimes said that the surrende
OF feIons is matter of comfy, and not mat
ter of right This seems to be the view
entertained by Judge Story IN his Confllc
OF Laws, and others resting on his authort,
have adopted the same opinion. But d,
not see any Importance in the distinction
II there is any difference. it is merel,
nominal, and cannot affect the result. I
is rather distinction without difference
like the imperfect and perfect obligation.
IN ethics. But | can cxemplfy my meaning
best by stating case. The treaty of 1874
between Great Britain and United States
contained stipulation for the mutual sur.
render of certain felons, but we had nc
such stipulation with France. As between
us and Great Britain the surrender was
matter of right, but between us and France
It was but a matter oe comfy. In the one
case. it was an admitted duty. in the other,
an implied one; but was it therefore, more
binding in the one than the other? 1t is
said the breach Of treaty obligation would
be more fragrant. I confess do not see
u in that light. The mao who lends his
friend hundred dollars, confiding in his
honor to repay it, is as much entitled to his
pay, as another who lends the same on his
bond and mortgages; and which | ask,
would an honorable man pay first? We
were under as much obligation to France
as to England and the laws of nations as
imperative in the one case. as in the other
France confided in our honor. England
exacted pledge. Without intending to
exactng the stipulation, ought to add
there were reasons which existed at that
time for the stipulation. but when the
reason ceased. the article was droppeG.
But it is mistake to suppose that any new
duty was created. The treaty was merely
declaratory Of the law Of nations, and was
but in the nature Of record evidence of
our admission of it.
The right Of the Governor Of Canada to
make the request in this case seems not to
have been questioned, and so far as know.
is admitted. As the right is not disputed,
it may appear superfuous to examine the
grounds of it, but think it may be useful
to ascertain the principles on which the
right of making such request must rest,
inasmuch as it may help Us to establish the
true grounds of the duty of surrendering.
| shall take it for granted that no power
has the right to demand that does not
admit the duty of surrendcring-tbatl the
right and duty mus, be reciprocal. Hence
if Canada has the right to demand. YER
mont has stronger right, and if Canada
may be required to surrender, by far
stronger reason Vermont is bound TO do
The same.
Canada, as all know, is province, rules
by delegated authority, and does not
claim to be considered as an independent
state. Their government is under the
of another power, their public acts
are subject to supervision, and their whole
organization liable to be changed at the
will of the imperial government. But
Canada has political organization, with
power to enact laws for the protection of
all within its jurisdiction. The citizens
have right 10 demand the aid of the gov.
eminent to protect them in their persons
and property, and the government having
power TO protect are bound to
exercise the power without reference to
the source whence it is derived. The
political standing Of the government be-
comes lmmalerlal, and the question whether
they rule by an original or by delegated
power ceases to be of any Importance. 1t
is the possession Of the power to protect
that creates the duty OF protection, and
hence the ght o! making the request does
not flow from the absolute Independence of
The government, but from the fact of its
From this view il follows.
that every organized community. having
power TO enact laws for the protection of
those within its jurisdiction, has the right
of demanding an offender against those
laws.
This right is founded on a principle of
protection. Whatever is necessary as
means of protection. is within the legiti,
mate powers OF the government. The
punishment of offences is of that character,
and the power of protection without full
power TO punish would be but an empty
grant. The punishment of offences is the
price paid for individual security, and there
can be no perfect protection without it.
Every citizen has right to demand this
protection. None are so high as to be
above its need, none So low as TO be beneath
is care. 1t is the glory and the excellence
1t free governments, in which The English |
md the American may participate, that
he most humble citizen may demand the
I'D of the whole organized power for his
protection. The strength Of this power
es,s chiefly in the right ofthe government
o intlIct punishment. But this punish
nent is not in the nature Of retributlve
uslice. 1t is a high preventative power,
operating by the terror of its example and
irving protection to the feeble and the in.
'ocent by deprivIng depraved men of the
'ower of mischief The offender may well
deserve punishment, but if punishment had
10 higher object, the proceeding would
ose much of It's dignity and moral force.