Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1841-12-21

~, ,r,r ,nas and The extent TO which party was
carried al that day ought to be lesson To violent party
,en in al! time 10 come. Virginia went SO lar rs TO
enact that any person who should denver UP OF
dar either by his own authority or under color Of any
ica under The nonwealt, any free person within
s commonwealth, lie transported without Tie U. o
should he aiudged clon, and sentenced 10 be comm
ed in the pcnentary And she further enacted 'ha 10
case the person delivered up or snrrthaeieu Iouu "
transported 10 place without Tie T. SaeS and al snch
I ,l.ce shpud be tired and condemned, and IN conse
nucnce of such condemnation should be executed 'n
LIVERY person concerned in the delivery ana -,
should suffer death. These enacmen's ought
SINCE 10 have been repealed, but owing mos, PJ ~
n nadyertcnce, they are yet to nc ioubu -, Wv n,os
1919 Certain is that they are opposee ~, ~ Enalis
EXPRESSED nv foreign jurists To those OF l m his
hits and IA pubc sentiment generally, US WEI, "
country as eiss .rt - ,n,h was delivered up, has
ev,;red and no similar article, - ~, rn;,d
eSp'''u, "iu ,,, since made between the ohHea
insef'eu ~ G.oa, Griain Bot Chancellor Kent mas
ll sbai Thai article only decafatory Nso iai "
,.entl Of the law of nations. lie 10 ne'a md 49,
We W H. hL.rn. who fled from Upper Canada ana was
| nl.aI with theft And the Chief Justice OF LomeT
caa5as followed his authority in the cnsc OF ftsher
~ ,led from Ecrmont Both Judges cited cases from
the English courts and especaiiy te oP"on II, -""se
v. Kan J Taunt a3 of Heath J. who says at has &C.
,er,y beeu understood tina, wheresoeyer crime has
hoe, committed the criminal is punishable according to
the ir oci of the country against the law OF winch the
crime was committed and b. the comfy Of Nations
he country in which the criminal has been found, has
aided the police of the country against which the crime
was committed in bringing The criminal 10 punishment
In Lord LonghLoro9ghs lme the crew of Dutch ship
mastered the vessel and away with her and brought
her into Deal and IL was question whether we could
seize them and send them 10 Holland; and 1t was held
we might. And the same hns always been the law OF
nll civilized countries. " This is the language oil
Judge Of very great experience who sal upon the
Ennsh bcuch for the long period of forty yours, and
who i, has been said BY Chief Justice OF Lnstand,
was right i'll most that ever came before hun:
II seems them that OH proper demand from me Ike
cutive authority Of the 4. States, and the proper
proof the persons engaged i'll the murder on board The
Creolc ought 10 be delivered up, unless The peculiar
nature of the murder furnishes sufficient reason LOT
different course In the Of Thomas MASH, t was
said by Mr. tial'an that an impressed American sea
man. who should commit homicide for the purpose oil
hcratnr himself from the vessel in which he was con-
fined ought not 10 be given up as murderer, ana III inns
Mr Marshall expressed his entire concurrence "Ihe
act" he said of impressng an 1mericdn Is an act oil
lawless violence The confinement on board vessel
continuation OF that violence, and additional outrage
Death committed within the United States IN RESTING
such violence would not have been murder, ard the
person irving the wound could not have been treated
as murderer Thomas Nash was only to have been de-
vered nm 10 Justice on such evidence had the fact
been committed within the United States would have
been sufficient 10 have induced his commitment and
trial for murder.
If this view of the supposed of impressment be
correct the British authorities at Nao Providence may
adop similar reasoning; and say death committed by
one within British terrItory, in resisting an attempt TO
hold him IN slavery would not be MURDER and there
fore as proof of such homicide II committed within
British territory, would not induce commitment ana
,rhl so neither will i: authorize surrender to foreign
government. But the inquiry IS naturally suggested
whether if n person commit within the jurisdiction VI
the United States that which is felony according TO It's
laws and not felony according to the laws OF the
country in which he is found, the comfy Of nations
does not make il proper HAT he should be delivered up
on such proof Of the actual taft committed US accord
ng 10 the laws Of the place where he IL found wonld
;ps,Iy his apprehension and commitment tor trial. II
the fact had been there committed and had there con-
sti,utcd felony On this subject positive rule
be laid down Where States stand towards each other,
no, rs IKE States do in this conicdeTacy, under one
| Government with Constitution providing for such
cases but as nations wholly foreign the circumstances
the commission The act charged as crime and
the sentiment its crminaty prevailing IN the coun-
ry where the offender is found, always have weight,
mon lie question whether the offender shall be deliver
ed M or not, IT, Io1 example, one engaged in the Afr
can slave trade SHOULD be killed by the African whom
he !: attempting 10 ensiaye, aud tie African should al
forwards be found in country whose government has
forbidden lis citizens engage in tina, iralic, IS not
prohabe tina, he would be delivered up, although the
homicide might have been committed on board vessel
belonging 70 Ta's2 G ShG 9 scEeInmsn! had sanction
der while, however, il might be proper notto deiire!
tn il; scc, ease that lust supposed, lie ceVery
up may nevertheless be proper IN such case as that
which has actually occurred. Il will derolve the
Government of the United States to lay before the Rr
fish Government it's We've of this case, and the British
Government must decide whether IL will make the sur
,epdar or not c. K.