The spirit of the age. [volume] (Woodstock, Vt.) 1840-1844, 1841-02-26

No greater wrong can be done TO country than
invasion of soil. If it can be done with IMMUNITY
at one point, and on one occasion, 1t can be done
at another and the nation that submits 10 IT, finally
sinks down into dwelling inbeciry. If a repre-
senaton of the state of things at Scosscr, and the
conduct of those who had the control of the Caro-
line had first been made to the proper authorities
of New York, or of the United SMleis then there
would have been some show al least OF respect lor
our sovereignty and independence, and DISPOSE
ton to treat us an equal, Hut in this case, ms
if to treat our authorities with contempt, there was
no preliminary demand or representation made,
| Ii was hoped that the outrage was pcrpelratcd
| by a party in sudden heat and excitement, upon
their own responsibility. But the British Minister
now avows that 'the act the public act OF per-
sons chewing the constituted Authorities Of her
NIniesty's Province" and again uiirms that sit
was public net of persons in her Majesty service;
obeyng the orders of their superior authorities
If this had been the first and only point OF coils
ion with Great Britain, it might not have excited
such interest but there is an assumption in most Of
opr intercourse with that great power, revolving to
the pride and spirit Of independence in free peo-
pie, If it be her desire to preserve peace her true
policy would be to do justice, aud show that cour-
iesy to equals which she has always demanded
from Others The committee do not desire to press
|
a demand has been made by our government upon
the government of Great Britain for explanation as
to the outrage committed, the answer TO which, 1t
is hoped, will prove satisfactorily,
As to the other points presented in the demand
made by the British Minister for the elaboration
of Alexander M'LeOd, the committee believe the
facts of the case to be, that the steamboat was
seized and burnt MS stated before, and that cili-
zen or citizens Of New York were murdered in the
ntlrav. And there were reasons 10 induce Il belief
/ that Mcleod was PaTiiceps cIimiais. lie was at
first arrested, and upon various testimony was then
discharged. lie was afterwards arrested Il second
lime, Upon the evidence then presented he was
imprisoned to await his trial There was no inya-
sion Of British territory to seize or take him. Bat
upon his being voluntarily within our territory, he
was arrested us any citizen of the United STATES,
charged with a similar offence, might have been
| We know Of no aw of nations that would exempt
a man iiom arrest and imprisonment for offences
charged to be-commcd against the "pcace and
dignity" of State because h. j. sub Jet of Great
| Britain, or because he committed crime mt the
insigalion of, or under the authority Of British
| Provincial officers much less do we know of amy
law that would justify the President to deliver him
up without trial, AT the demand aud upon the as
scrlion as 10 facts, or uny agent Of the British Gov
eminent.
| If we had been at open war with Great britain,
and Mcleod had committed the offences charged,
then he might have fallen under the rules aud rcgu-
| lu,ions of war, and been treated as prisoner Of
| the United States Government, and would have
been subject TO the laws of nations in war. But as
the alleged criminal acts, in whirh M'lcod is CHAR
gcd to be Implicated, were committed III profound
peace, it is a crime, as far us he may be concern
ed, solely against the ''pcacc and dignity Of the
State of New York, and her criminal jurisdiction
is complete and exclusive. lrlhc crimes commit
| ted, be such a. 10 make II man kosii} bUmGHi &C.
HWs--an outlaw a pirate, in the legal acccptallon
| Of the term, then under the law Of nations, the T.
States courts and tribunals would have jurisdiction
Bat The offence charged in this case, committed ms
it was in time Of peace, as far us this individual
was concerned, was one purely against the Ter To-
ct, and coming exclusively within the criminal ju-
llisdc,ion of the tribunals Of New York,
The Minister, in his letter Of the 18th ncccm-
her, siO says; "i, Is quite notorious that Mr. Nc
! Icod was not one of the party engaged IN the de-
siructon of the stcamhnnt Caroline; and that the
pretended charge upon which he has been mpis
oncd rests only upon the pcriurcd testimony Of
certain Canadians, outlaws aud their ubcitors,"
Sc. This may 'perchnncc all be 30; but it would
be asking great deal to require IN American court
to Weld jurisdiction and surrender up prisoner
charged with oicnccc against the law, upon the
mere ipec 3iEH of any man, no nallcr hnw high
in authority. Whether Mcleod be- guilty or not
guilty, is the very point upon which an American
Jury alone hive rich, TO decide, Jurisdiction in
State tribunals oy.r criminal cases, aud uml BY
Jury of the venue, are essential points in Amcri-
can Jurisprudence. And it is a total mlsapprchcn-
sion rs to the nature of on system, to suppose that
there is any right in the Federal Executive to ar
rest the verdict Of the one, lhwarl the jurlSdc
ton Of the other.
| If such power existed, and were exercised, i,
would clrctualy overthrow, aud upon vital
point, separate the sovereignty and independence
of these States. The Federal Executive might be
clothed with power To deliver upf gitiyes from JUS
ticc for offences committed against foreign state.
! but even then il mitht no, be- obligatory To do So,
unless il were made matter Of treaty slipUlaiiOn.-
| This duty and right in an Executive ha' generally
| been considered as dormant, and mndG binding by
treaty arrangement. But when the matter is re-
versed, and demand is made, not of rugilvcs from
Justice for offences committed against foreign
power, but for the Liberation of Il man charged with
offences against the peace and dignity Of one of our
own states, then it is, that the demand becomes
prCpOstcrOus in the extreme The fact that the
offences were committed under the sanction of pro-
yincaI authorities does not alter the case, unless
we were in state of war.
/ III SUCH CuStS Us lic UIf-Cu' p'NFI W UcllNCI
up could not be conferred upon the Federal EXccu-
tive by treaty stipulation. 1t could only be con-
erred in those which jurisdiction is clear
| " delegated by the Federal Constitution Such,
for instance, as treason, which is an offence against
the conioncd sovereignty of the States. as defined
in the Constitution. Over all cases except those
defined in the CONSTITUTIONS and those coming clear
| ~ under the laws Of nations, the States have cx-
elusive jurisdiction. and the trial aud punishment
Tor offences against lhlm, incident TO their scpa-
rate sovereignty. 1t is not pretended in this case
that there Is any treaty stipulation under which the
demand is made; and the Federal Executive under
our system, has power but what il conferred By
the Constitution, or by special law of Congress. In
the former it j. declared that the Executive power
ia vested in President Of the United States. aud
that power il then 10 be pointed out and defined by
special laws passed from time TO time imposing
such duties as are thought proper aud cSpedent by
Congress.
! Your committee deem il dangerous for the Execu
tive 10 exercise any power over subject matter
not conferred by treaty or by law; and 10 exercise
it in any case in conflict with State jurisdiction,
would be worse than dangerous, it would be usur-
patton.
] n. 4 Il