Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1840-01-14

Executive Department.,
NLE.Sy, October u, 1879. )
Sir; I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt OF
your communication of the fth inst IN answer TO my
letter of The 10th OF September last. have bestowed
upon il all the consideration required by the acknow-
deed Importance of the subject, and by the high re-
suect due To Yourself and the enlightened state over
which YOU preside. My opinions having already heen
fully communicated IL remains Tor me on Tie pre-.
sent occasion only notice msapprehenSions oil
them which appear in your letter, and TO reply TO 50
,nueh Of your argument has not been anticipated
You yery Justly observe, that ''nether the govern
ment nor the citizens of any other country, right
fully interfere with the municipal regulations oil any
country in any way and in support OF this position
YOU introduce the following extract from Vatte Law
of Nations at is evident consequence OF the llDer-
~ and independence of nations Says NatteD "that
an have a RIGHT TO be governed they think proper
and that no State has the smallest right to interfere IN
The government of another OF all the rights that can
belong to nation, sovereignty Is a"uotesS tme mos
precios and that which other nations ought the most
scrunplonsv to respect if they would not do her an
injury.
II MIGHT perhaps be inferred from the earnestness
with which these princ pies are pressed IN your coh
nicafon that they had been controvered on my part
Peymt me therefore 10 bring again before yon the fol
lowing distinct admissions 81 do not question the
constitutional right of State to make such penal
code ms il shall deem necessary or cxpedient nor 10
claim that citizens Of another State shall be exempted
from arrest trial and punishment in the State adopting
such code however different its cnactments may be
from those existing in their own State mus you
will perceive that have admitted the sovereignty oil
the several states upon winch you 50 s'rennonsy ss
To preyen however all possible misconstrucon on thus
subject beg leave to add that no person can MAINTAIN
more firmly than do the principle that the States are
sovereign aud independent in regard to all matters eN
cept those in relation TO which sovereignty expressly
mr. nv necessary implication, transferred to tue Federal
(orernment by the Constitution OF the United States
have at least believed that my noncompliance with
the reouston made upon in the present case would
be regarded as maintaining the equal sovereignty and
independence of this State, and by necessary conse
nuence those Of all the other States.
The conditional provision involved in the discussion
is as follows "a person charged III any State with
treason felony other crime, who shall nee from JUS
tice and be found in another State shall on demand
the executive authority of the State from which Inc
fled, be delivered up to be removed to the State nav
ing jurisdiction of the crime.
We agree, as am very happy to perceive, in the po
stion that the object of this provision was to recognize
and establish between the States equal and ndepen
dent SOVEREIGN communities, the mutual right and OBJ
lioaton 10 demand and surrender fugtives from jus
tice they exist between independent nations by the
law of nations 1t is therefore Of great Importance &c
understand correctly the right and obligation as they
exist in the law of nations.
You introduce and mark especially important the
following extract from Vattel: elf the offended State
has in her power the individual who has done the lnu
nv she NAV without scrupe bring him to justice anu
punish him. If he has escaped and retained to his oen
coufru she ought apply 10 has sovereign TO hare JuStcf
one in The case And since the utter ought not to suf
fer his subjects modest the subjects Of oher States OF
to do them injury, much less 10 give opeh auoacous
offence TO foreign powers he ought to compel the trans
ressor TO make reparation for the damage injury
possible or to infct on hun an exemplary punishment,
or finally according to the nature and circumstances OF
the case TO dcr him up 10 the otfndtd Saieto &c there
brought to Justice :.
With the most respectful Difference cannot admit
that this authority supports the position you assume
TO wit that it is the duty of the State upon which
reousition is made 10 deliver up its citizens when
CHARGED with any crime, without reference to the ma
tnre of the offence Vattel asserts that the State to
which the offending citizen belongs ought in some cases
10 compel the to make reparaon Tor the da-
IMAGES or injury if possble that IN others It should m
fict exemplary punishment and finally that IN others 10
he determined by the and circumstances OF The
case it must deliver him up to the offending State to be
brought to Justice only asserted that an Obligation
rests upon the State of the offending party not to suffer
it's subjects modest the subjects of other States or to do
them an injury, much less To give open, audacious OF
fence to foreign powers Bnt is not explained by the
author in what that obligation may be discharged
by Compelling the transgrcssor to make reparation IN
what cases by the infection Of exemplary punishment
and finally in what cases it can only be performed by
currenderng the offender to the offended State IL any
;nfsrence can be drawn from the passage quoted to
direct us in the classification of these casea, It would
seem to be that the classification must be made ac
cordns to the severity of the different remedies pre-
scrbed that the sovereign should compel the offend
or to make reparaton for molesflng the subjects OF
another State, should infct exemplary punishment
for injury TO the subjects of another State and should
deliver up the transgressor for open, audaeons Of
ence to foreign power 1t is true that the oon,
sttnton adopts only one of the remedies mentioned
nv Vaftel That one is the severe and final remedy
Of delivering the transgressor to the offended State
Rnt Il cannot therefore be maintained that the Cons-
tuition intends prescribe the final remedy Tor all the
offences mentioned by the author. The Constitution
sneaka only of treason felony and other crimes where
ne Vattes enumeration contains cases which do not
fall within the legal definition either of reason felony
or crime. There may be acts of molestation of the
subjects of other States and there may be injuries TO
snh;scts of civil prosecution In regard to all such Of
fences It is to be inferred that the Constitution rejects
them as not requiring redress as proper to be lett TO
the ordinary legal remedies rather than that eons
tu,es them crimes and applies to them the nai remeay
before mentioned. cc.,o.u
You have introduced also the authority Of Chancellor