Democratic standard. [volume] (Georgetown, Brown County, Ohio) 1837-1850, 1841-06-29


Majesty's Government, something would
seem to have been expected from the
Government Of the United States as little
cOnformable 10 the laws and usages of
the English Government as 10 those OF
the United States, and to which this Gov
eminent cannot accede."
Referring TO the direct avOwal of the
attack on the Caroline by the British
Government now communicated, MI.
Webster comedies the principle of indi-
ydual responsibility in the following
words, viz: ~.t,r.- Cd,
''The Government of the United States
entertain no doubt, that after this avowal
of the transaction as a public transac-
ton, authorized and undertaken by the
British authorities individuals concerned
in it ought not, by the principles of pub
lie law and the general usage Of civilized
States, to be holden personally RESPONSE
Bile in the ordinary tribunals Of law for
their participation in it,"
After some detail to show, that right
decision is 10 be expected from the courts
! of New York, Mr.. Webster recurs to the
case of the Caroline, and says'
"The undersigned has now to signify
to Mr.. Fox that the Government of the
United States has not changed the opin'
ion which it has heretofore expressed to
Her Majesty's Government of the char
acter of the act Of destroying the "Caro-
line"
He then enters into disquisitiOn
somewhat elaborate to show that this was
not an act necessary TO self defence
that the term "American pirates" apPli-
ed by Mr.. Fox TO citizens Of the United
States engaged in the Canada troubles,
was inappropriate; that both the legisa-
tive and executive action of this Govern
ment from the beginning have been exer-
ted to prevent the interference Of their
people in the wars Of other countries,
that it has punished and will continue to
punish violations Of It's laws in that res
pect; that its object and policy are peace
: &c. &c.
No reply TO this letter was communi-
Gated to Congress.
TO this correspon dence are appended
: the instructions given by Mr.. Webster t.
! the Attorney General, Mr., Crittenden,da
3 ted March 18th. The importance of thu
3 principles asserted and admitted in thi
. document, induce us 10 take from it The
following extract. viz:
GAN that is intended to be said, at pres
ent, is. that, since the attack on the Car
> Oline is avowed as a National act which
r may justify reprisals, or even general wa
. if the Govern ment Of United States, il
the judgment which it shall form of tht
transaction, aud of its own duty, shoulC
r see fit SO to decide, yet that it raises |
question entirely public and political, |
question between independent nations
and that individuals concerned in it can
= not be arrested and tried before the Ordi
3 nary tribunals, as for the violation Of mu
h nicipal law. /: the attack OH the Caroline
: was uujustifable, as this Government hal
asserted, the law which has been violated
b IS the law Of nations, and the redress
r which is to be sought, is the redress au
5 thorized in such Casses by the pro VisiOI
of that code.
b You are we'll aware that the Presde1
t hiss no power to arrest the proceedings il
: the civil and criminal courts of the Stat,
of New York. If this indictment werC
9 pending in one of the United States, ! an
l. directed 10 say that the President, u2Ol
: the receipt ofMr. Fox's last communica
tion, would have immediately directed
It DOlle prOsequi 10 be entered,
IS Whether, in this case, the Governor o
l. New York have that power, or, if he have
t whether he would feel It his duty to ex
$ ercise it, are points upon which we ar
n not informed,
: 1t is understood that Mcleod is hold
: en- also on civil process, sued out agains
8 him by the owner Ofthe Caroline. Yves uE
= pose it very clear that the executive o
d the State cannot interfere with such
,F Processj and, indeed, it such process
h were pending in the courts of the Unite
o States, the President could not arrest il
In such and many analogous cases tb
i party prosecuted or sued must avail hin
i self of his exemption or defence by jud
i cial proceedings, either in the court int
3 which he is called, or in some other cour
But whether the process be criminal Q
8 civil, the fact Ofhaving acted under pub
g lie authority, and in obedience to the OI
: ders Of lawful superiors, must be regard
5 ed as valid defence, otherwise individ
3 uals would be holden responsible for in
!. juries resulting from the acts Of Govern
t ment, and even from the operations q
public war;
You will be furnished with copy o
t this instruction for the use Of The Execu
tive of New York and the Attorney Gen
, eral of that State. You will carry will
> you, also, authentic evidence Ofthe rec
OgnitiOn by the British Government o
! the destruction Of the Caroline as an &C
I of public force done by national authori
~.