Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1841-03-01

lnul courtesy III CVuulS Wnlcn she mas always ue-
manded from Others The committee 10 not de-
sire to press views on this part ofhe subject par
ticunry as demand has bcen made by our Gov
eminent upon tho Government of Great Britain
for explanation rs to the outrage committed, the
answer to which it is hoped will prove sasfoc-
tory.
As 10 the other points presented in the demand
made by the British Minister for the CELEBRATION
OF Alexander Mcleod, the committee believe the
facts Of tho case to I've, that the steamboat was
seized and burnt stated before and that ci-
zen or citizens of New York were murdered in
the affray. And there were reasons TO induce a
belief that Mcleod was pnriicepS ciimi1is lie
was at first arrested, and upon various testimony
being taken, was then discharged. He was alter
wards arrested n second time. Upon the evidence
then presented, he wus mrisoned TO await his
trial. There was no invasion OF British territory
to sieze or take him. But upon his being voun
tarlly within our territory, he arrested as any
citizen Of The United States charged with similar
offence might have heen
W c know OF no law of naiiuiis that would eX-
cmpt lllss, from arrest aud imprisonment for Of
fences charged to be committed against the peace
and dignity of a state, because he is Il subject of
Great Britain, or because he committed the crime
ut the insgation under the authority of British
Provincial officers much eSs do we know of
any law that would justify the President to deliver
him up without trial, at the demand and upon the
assertion as TO facts, Of any agent OF the British
Great Britain, and Mcleod had committed the
Offences charged, then he might have fallen under
the rules and regulations OF war, and been treated
us Il prisoner of the United States Government,
and would have been subject to the laws Of ma
tons in war. But us the alledged criminal acts
IN which Mcleod Is charged to he implicated, |
were committed in profound peace, it is Grim,
MS far us he may be concerned, solely against the
"peace and dignity of the State of New York,
and her criminal jurisdiction is complete and ex
elusive. II the crimes commtled he such as TO
make man II hosts humani genus an outaw-a
pirate, in the legal accepratIon of the term, Then
under the law OF nations, the United States courts
and tribunals would have jurisdiction. But the
offence charged in this case, committed as it was
in Time OF peace, as far MS this Individual was
concerned, was one purely against the ier loci, and
coming exclusively within the criminal jursdic- |
ton OF the tribunals OF New York.
The Minister in his letter of the 18Th of De- |
cembcr, lo4O says "il is quite notorious that MIR
Mcleod was not one OF the party engaged i'll the
destruction Of the steamboat Caroline; and that
the pretended charge upon which he las been
imprisoned rests only III OIL the perurcd testimo-
ny of certain Canadians outlaws and their abet-
tors" &c. This may percllance all be so, but it
would be asking great deal to require an Amerl-
can court to yield Jurisdiction, and surrender up
Il prisoner charged with offences against the law,
upon the mere ipSe dirit of any man no maj ter
how high in authority. Whether Mcleod be gull
" or not guilty. is the very point upon which the
1 American Jury alone have right TO decide .Ju-
risdction in S ale tribunals orer criminal cases and
trial By jury Of the penue, are essential points in
| American jurisprudence; and it is Il total msap"
preIenson rs TO the nature of our system, TO sup
pose that there is any right in the Federal Exccu-
tive to arrest the verdict of the one, thwart the
jurisdiction ofthe other. If such power existed
and were exercised, it would effectually over
throw, and upon a vital point, the separate soye.
reignty and independence OF these States.
The Federal Executive might be coiheh with
power to deliver up fugltives from Justice for Of
lences committed against foreign State, but even
then il might he obligatory do So unless it were
made matter of treaty stipulation. This duty and
right in an Executive has generally been corsid-
cred es dormant until made binding by treaty ar
rangement. But when the matter is reversed, and
demand is made, not of lugitives from justice for
:, offences committed against foreign power, but
Tor the Liberation OF man charged with offences
against the peace and dignity Of one of our own
States, then 1t is, that the demand becomes pre-
posterous in the extreme. The fnct that the Often
ces committed under the sanction of prov
incia authorizes does not alter the Case, unless we
, were in state of war In such case as the pre-
sent, the power TO deliver up could not be confer
: red upon the Federal Executive by treaty stipula-
! ton. It could only be conferred in these cases
4 over which jurisdiction is clearly delegated by the
Federal Constitution. Such, for instance, rs trea-
= sou, which is an offence aganrt the conJoned
sovereignty VI tIle OtuleS, us ueHneu i'll Tue COLI
g stution.
: Over all cases except those defined in the con-
stiulon, and those coming clearly under the laws
S of nations, the States have exclusive jurisdiction,
: and the trial and punishment for offences against
Them, are ncldentto their separate sovereignty
1t is not pretended in this that there is any
IS treaty stipulation under which the demand is
$. made aud the Federal Executive under our sys-
g TEN, has no power but what is conferred by the
II constitution, or by special law of Congress. Ia
s the former it is declared that the Executive
J. power IS vested in a President OF The United
! States" and that power is then to be pointed out
g and defined by such special laws passed from
ID time to time, imposing such duties as are thought
10 proper and expedient by Congress-
10 Your committee deem ii dangerous for the En-
ecutive to exercise any power over subject mat
ID ter not conferred by treaty or by law and TO exer
else it in any case ia conflict with State jurisdiction
e. would be worse than dangerous; it would be us
10 urpaIion.
~ But your committee iorbear TO press these poin,
IS further AT present, and they would not have SAT-
nj rs much on such clear questions of nteInationa
re law, but that IN this case, the demand for liberia
er ton has been made by the accredited agent OF
OF greut power, and under circumstances ol peculla
IL aggrayalIpn aud excitement.
- We Lave other points OF difference with Grea
arr Britain, which add interest 10 eve:y question Ma
M arises between US AT present. Neither our moth
lw eastern or northwestern boundaries are yet set
IA tied with her aud the subject is not entirely FIRE
n from difficulty. She has siezed our vessels an
OF exercised power inpotoing The rigid Of Searcl
nd under the preiext Of SURPRISING the foreign slav
IA trade, which, if persevered in, will sweep OF
commerce from The coast of Africa, and which
IAN incompatible with our righIsns naralimc poWa
ny She has recently, in her intercourse with us, re
me fused indemnify, and denied our rights to prope
a'- ~, on n subject matter vial 10 near half III
eP, States of this coalcderacy and which, conside
lhu ing her military position At Bermuda and b'
no growing mower in the West Indies il one of n
lies last importance 10 our national ndependence.
ere All these subjects make every question bewee
to MS. ut this particular juncture, Of the deepest il
ISL terest.
Resides this we are both iy daetin me