Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1841-06-25

Tor supposed participation N WINCH iGi!eoa 'ai ~
arrested and indicted the courts Of New YORK, was
now avowed by the British Government TO have been
an act of public military force planned and eAecu'u
nv the competent public authorities IN alleged defence
Of Her Majestys territories, and, as such' was nse
Nv Her Majesty Government al nome iiome'e'
unwarr,rtablc the act from that moment II coud Ut
viewed only as national wrong, the full responsibility
o. whc was assumed by the British Government ana
N bich the individuals concerned were but lrrespoh
,hle Instruments acting under orders which they were
implicitly bound to obey.
Under these circumstances the present Admnisra-
ton was called on, within the first week OF us o'c'a
existence decide what was due to me ha'"n
al honor in this attitude OF things. lhey co"'o
not but admit that, by the principles oil pubic a" o.
recognized and sanctioned by the uses OF all c'Sicu
nations, persons engaged in military or naVa' e"Fi
pses under the orders of their lawful superiors, coho
not be held individually responsible for what was done
in the execution of those enterprises hcLeoo' np"
YER was in the hands Of the ndical tribunals o 'e
Country and by regular Judicial process ony cou'o Us
be discharged. The Executive authority haa u" "1h'
to interpose for his release what, men, was
the answer of the Administration TO the couinuhca-
ton of the British Government: 1t was such MS Mr.
r believed the Senate would feel 10 De IN acco'uanee
with the honest national pride OF every American DO
son. Twas, in substance, nus lor pe nac not .t
answer Of The Secretary Of State then before HIM:
You ube British GovernmenD now avow the deslruc-
lion Of the Caroline public act OF military and ma.
val force done under your authority Hehcelotward
Mcleod and others, who acted under your orders,
INNS, stand excused in the eye of the law. Let the
courts in the exercise Of the jurisdiction which Of
rirht belongs to them, allow his plea Of immunity and
discharge: but we hold you responsible in his place,
tbrouph all those modes of international redress winch
the code of nations has provided for the or
yindication of national rights. The American peo-
ME" land here, said Mr.. R, use in part, the very
words Of the answer returned by the Secretary OF
Stae1 disrustful of their ability to redress pub
lie erongs by public means, is incapable OF the poor
revenge of pursuing individual tor national Of
fence in which he was but the instrument OF his Co.
vernment
Mr. Rives appealed to the Senate-to the sentiment
of American pride-to that Roman spirit which, he be-
lieved vet survived in the bosoms OF his countTymen,
10 say whether such reply was not worthy Oh 'he
country and the Government: "fdrcere S"cjfcts a.
debclare superJos was the dictate OF lofty and mag
unanimous spirit whether in individuals or IN States
Historians have recorded the conduct OF the roman
Senate on the occasion Of their ambassador oehs XIII
ed by the subjects of Demetrus one oil the most pow
erfui princes of antiquity Demetrius delivered up the
ir,tors ne the act TO the Romans; but the Senate,
snsnecno that he had connived at encouraged the
crime Immediately sent back the individual offenders,
notifying Demetrus that they would hold the sovereign,
and not the subject, responsible Is II in following lhe
example of that proud Republic that the honorable Sc
naor from Pennsylvania finds ground Tor nputing 70
,be Administrations in the case of Mcleod, want OF
proper national tone and spirit:
But the Senator tells ALSO that he dssents entirely
from the views of the Administration IN regard TO The
principle of international law involved IN the cores
pondence between MIR. Fox and the Secretary OF State
What is the principle thus denied: cite IT, as the ho-
norabe Senator did, from the letter OF instructions 10
the Attorney. General 1t is there laid down in the
following words :
There is therefore, authentic deara,ion that the at
tack the Caroline act OF public force done ~ may
men, orders Of hr supr officers, and recognised n
nc mart of public force under The authority ~ has Go
rernment he held aswcrc private trespasse or
civilized nations and which The Government OF the United
States has no inclination 10 dispute ,
The Senator from Pennsylvania contends that tins
doctrine is applicable only to state of open, formal
and declared 1car In this beg leave to dlter from
him. Ii is applicable 10 every case OF military agrees
sion committed by military men, acting III obedience
to their superior authorities whether 1t be IN state oi
general and formal war or not. What is the reason
of the thing Let us not stick in the letter, but look
to the considerations on which the rule is founded
Why soldiers and military men not held RESPONSE
BILE for acts of violence and trespass committed in
military operations, on the persons and property OF
citizens of another nation Because in those acts they
are the mere instruments Of higher Power, bound
mperatvey by their allegiance to yield their services
at the call of the constituted authorities OF their coun
try, and to obey implicitly the orders OF their command
ing officers. II is not for the soldier or the volunteer
(for they both stand the same ground) 10 inquire
into the Justice legality of the orders he
His duty is obedience, while the responsibility for his
orders with his sovereign, the superior officers who
Issue them. And here beg leave to refer The honor
able Senator TO his favore authority, (Vatel,) from
which he read an extract which shall presently show
completely sustans, when properly understood the po.
sition he used to assa The passage am about TO
read refers 10 the of wanton aud unjust war; OF
so fragrant character TO expose The sovereign who
wages il to the unanimous eprobatlon OF the whole ia
mly of nations. The author there SAYS
"But epaaion Of any damage, The military, the
general officers and soldier Obliged N CONSEQUENCE repair lnc
injuries which they have done, not Of their own will but as N
ut
jects suppose the orders Of the sovereign Just and mise
When therefore, they have lent their assistance IN war
which afterwards found be- unjust, the 1io"e
guilty lie alone bound To repair the injuries The subjects
from necessary obedience" "Guvcnmcn, would mprncc,.
BILE, Of lis instruments we're 10 weights commands
&c.-vatt,l, b. iii, c. II, sec Isl.
In this passage, both the rule and the o: it.,
respecting the immunity from individual responsibility
of persons employed in military operations, arc LAID
down in the most comprehensive terms. They are re-
garded instruments IN the hands OF the sove
reign superior authorities much So in effect,
the bayonets they ply or the cannon they discharge
The rule too is expressed in Hrms SO large and com
prehensve to apply to every Kind war, in regard to
its character for justice, and to every degree of war; III
respect TO formalty duration and extent There are
many forms and varieties of the state Of war In
general declaration of war is required, to constitute
solemn formuL war. But "dcensve war requires
no declaration, nor even OH urgent OCCASIONS an ex-
press order frem the sovereign. Faucl, D. ~, C. !,
sec. &C So as to reprsaS, and other specific and
par ial acts Of hostility They are not accompanied
with declaration Of war; and yet they public ears,
though Of the imperfect sort Rutherforth, an able
writer the law Of and Of nations, has well
described these various degrees and denominations Of
war. He says
eff nation seizes the goods Of nation ly force,
account Of damage such
rtprsai There be likewise hostility
two nations hc do properly under the Of rcp
SAILS such the beiegng each others the sinking Of
each others flces whilst The other
rh another These public because nations the
contendnr pes But they confined particular
Objects, they of the imperfect sort, &c-B H. G. TO-
| Ut these informal and imperfect wars, neither ac-
| companIed with declaration of war, nor extending
into general and continued hostities the examples in
modern times very numerous Not to speak Of
the memorable attack on Copenhagen, we have had,
in day, repeated instances of these local. par
tia and isolated hostlities, amounting, nevertheless,
during their continuance, TO state of war; and car
rying with them all the legal consequences of that
state. One instance too fresh in his recollection,
MIR. R. sad, having occurred during the period of his
residence IN France and furnished too apt an ustra-
ton of the principles under discussion, not to justify
passing notice. While the tyrant Don Miguel was
the throne of Portugal, he practised the grossest