The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1841-01-26

munity, are "ieonies and 'crimesn within the mean
ing o. the Constitution, would involve the serious
consequences BY imposing obligations which it would
DC impossible TO execute. IL is evident there be
some limit TO the description Of 'crimes" by the
constitution; and thai which have applied in this
instance seems 10 give full and fair scope to the
provision and at the same time preserve the right OF
exclusive legislation 10 each State over persons con-
tessedly within s jurisdiction while il preserves thai
harmony which Is 30 essential TO mutual interest.
ne offence charged in the affidavit before me- is
no' understood 10 be that kind Of kidnapping person.
oy winch he was deprived Of his liberty or held in
unfess or suffered personal wrong injustice, but is
understood to mean the taking Of slave considered
as property, from his II am incorrect in this
suPPosihon, the vagueness and uncertainty Of the
aihdasit must excuse my But think there
DC no controversy upon this point need not inform
YOU SIR that there law Of this State which recog
nizes slavery, no statute which admits that one man
car be the property Of another, or that be
stolen IRON another On the other hand our Cons-
luton ard laws abolish slavery in every form The
ac' charged 10 the affidavit if 1t had been committed
In TINS slate would not conravene any statute, is
Il necessary to inform you that the common law which
IS IN force In this State when not abrogaed by statute
does not recognize slavery make the act of which
the partfs accused in this clonious crim
| nal.
| 1t results from this view of the subject that the
offence charged in the affidavit and specified in the
QUESTION, is not felony crime within the mean
ing Of tho Constitution; and that waving all the de-
fects in the affidavit cannot surrender the supposed
ugilives TO be carried to Virginia for trial under the
statute Of that State.
So far as my knowledge extends no State has ever
admitted the constitutional obligation surrender its
citizens to extend beyond the limits have mention
ed, although demands have been made in cases SINH
lar to the one nnder consideration. If entertained
doubts of the business of the views have expressed
should be very unwilling TO establish precedent so
full of danger to the personal security of the citizens
of this State.
| The Executive of Virginia under date Of October
A. 1889 acknowledges the receipt of this answer from
Gov Seward, and after rccaptulating the substance
of il, proceeds ms follows:
Now, sir these doctrines completely at war
with what | understand to be the law Of nations 20
yernng the intercourse the rights and obligations Of
separate and foreign countries, and by consequence
yet more inconsistent with the friendly and federal
latons Of these States prescribed by Constitution
of government fully considered and freely adopted by
each in its foreign capacity, that cannot agree by
remaining silent 10 be considered acqulescing for
moment in their correctness. According to the laws
OF nature and of nations every independent commu
nifty of people has undoubted right to foim for it.
self civil socety-to construct lis own form Of GO
vernment to devise and enact its system of laws
ITO conduct It's internal municipal regulations in
such manner may best conduce to lis own happ
ness and prosperity-and to establish by treaty OF
otherwise all such political relations and commercial
arrangements with other countries may not be In
conflict with the universal principles Of justice, and
the rights of other nations 1t thus becomes free,
Independent and sovereign State and its pro-
per station among the great family of nations Nei-
Their the government the citizens Of any other
country rightly interfere with its municipal regu-
lations in any way. 1t is an evident consequence
of the liberty and independence Of nations says Vat
te) that all have tight TO be governed they think
proper and that State has the smallest right in
terfcre in the government of another OF all the rights
that can belong to nation sovereignty Is doubtless
the most precious and that which other nations ought
the most scrupuousy TO respect if they would not do
her an injury The citizens of no other country are
in anywise bound put foot upon her soil but they
choose of their own free will to do, they become ut
entitled to the protection and subject to the pc
nalties Of her laws and during their soourn are in
duty bound TO deport themselves good and orderly
members of the society TO which they have thus tenn
poraiy attached themselves. Should they choose to
pursue different course, however, by nung the CT
misunderstanding purloning their property, and
violating the laws they then forfeit their right of pro-
lection, and subject themselves to the punishment af
fixed by the supreme authority to their offences.
According to Vattel, page 1862: " If the offended
State has in her power the individual who has done
the injury, she may, without scrupe bring him to JUS
tlce and punish him. II he has escaped and returned
ibis country she oughtto apply TO his sovereign
TO- hare justice done in the And since the latter
ought suffer his subjects modest the subjects Of
other States, 10 do them INJURY much less to give
open audacious offence to foreign powers he ought to
compel the transgressor 10 make reparation for the
damages injury if possible, or to nict on him an
exemplary punishment; finally, according to the
nature and circumstances of the case, to deirer him
up 10 the offended State, to be there brought TO jus
| tice"
In strict accordance with these views, those
pressed by very able and distinguished citizen of
yeur State, James Kent in the first volume of his
mentaries, page SO. 1T has sometimes been made
question how far one government bound by the
law of nations and Independent Of treaty to suTren-
de upon demand fugves from justice, who having
committed crimes In one country flee to another ior
shelter 1t is declared by the public ursts that epery
State is bound 10 deny any asylum to criminals and
upon application and due examination of the case to
surrender the fugitive the foreign State rhere the
crime was committed The language of the authori-
ties is clear and explicit and the law and usage OF
nations rest the panes principles Of justice 1t IS
the duty of the government 10 surrender up tugVes
upon demand, after the civil magistrate shall have as
cerained the existence of reasonable grounds for the
charge and sufficient 10 put The accused upon has
trial" Thus then 1t is SEEN even in reference to ma
tons not bound by treaty confederaied by compact
that the usage Of surrenderng ugitves from justice
is observed and cherished in the most liberal spirit
But the principle is greatly enlarged in its application
TO those countries situated near each other and whose
citizens are engaged in constant negotiations or fire.
auent intercourse the with the other. In such
cases the duty of each sovereign to restrain his sub
ects from interfering with those Of the other becomes
indlspensaby necessary TO secure the blessings OF
peace and avoid the evils of constant state OF
Hence Vattel page ls5, observes ne natter car
REL still further in states that more closely con-
nected by friendship and good ncighborhood Even
in of ordinary transgressions which are only
subjects of civil prosecution either with view to the
recorery Of damages the nhciion of slight eipH
punishment, the subjects Of two neghborng states are
rec,procdiy bgcd 10 appear before the magistrate of
the place where they accused Of haring failed in
their duty"
In the 4th article and I'd section oflhe Federal Con-
suton is found the following clause p" person
charged in any Stale with treason felony, or other
crime, who shall flee from justice and be found in ano-
Their State, shall on demand of the executive authority
of the State from which he fed, be deirered up 10 be