Democratic standard. [volume] (Georgetown, Brown County, Ohio) 1837-1850, 1841-08-03

"Fhe result is that the fitting out o
the expedition was an unwarrantabIe act o
! Jurisdiction exercised by the provincial
government of Canada over our citizens
The movements Of the boat had beer
watched by the Canadian authorities from
The opposite shore. She had been seer
to visit Navy Island the day before
Those authorities, being convinced Of de
linquency, sentenced her to be burned; an
act which all concerned knew would seri-
ously endanger the lives of our citizens.
The sentence was, therefore, equivalent
TO Judgment of death; and a body of sol
diers was sent TO do the Office of execu,
/ TONERS.
"Looking at the case independently of
power, no one could hesitate in assigning
the proper character to such a transaction.
The parties concerned having acted entire
| ly beyond their territorial or magisterial
power, are treated by the laws as indvid-
ualS proceeding on their own responsible
| ty. II they have burned, it is arson; ifa
man has been killed, it Is murder"
The Judge supposes case
''l will suppose a stronger case; that,
England being at war with France, should,
by statute or by order of the Queen, au-
thorize her 'diery to enter our territory
and make war upon such French resi-,
deots as might be plotting any mischief a.
gainst her. Could one other soldiers in
dicted for murder of a French citizen
plead such a statute or order in bar? If
he could not as against a stranger and So
journer in our land, need not inquire
whether the same measure of protection
be due to Durfee our fellow citizen"
y
"Much was said on the argument about
the extreme hardship of treating soldiers
as criminals, who, it was insisted, are OBJ
liged to obey their sovereign. The rule
is the same in respect 10 the soldier as it
is with regard TO any other agent who is
bound to obey the process or command
of his superior. A sheriff is obliged TO
execute man who is regularly sentence
ed to capital execution in this state.-
But should he execute man in Canada,
under such sentence, he would be mur-
derer. A soldier in time of war between
us and England, might be compelled by
an order from our government, to enter
Canada, and fghl against and kill her
soldiers.
"But should Congress pass a statute
compelling him to do so on any imagina-
bic exigency, or under any penalty in
time OF peace, it he should obey and kill
a man, he would be guilty of murder
The mistake is in supposing that sover-
eign can compel man TO go into a neigh
boring country, whether in peace or war.
and do deed of inlamy. This is exem-
plfied in the case of spies. A sovereign
may solicit and brbc, but he cannot COM
mand. A thousand commands would
not save the neck of spy should he
be caught in the camp of the enemy -
Vauel, B. 7, ch. 10, 8l79. lts a mistake
to suppose that a soldier is bound TO do
an act contrary to the law of nature, al
the bidding of his prince.-Vattel, B. T.,
ch. 4, ) Sd, id B. 3, ch. 2, Is. Grot,
d. 2, ch-2 26, 3 8, n. : and 3 Paif B. 8,
ch. !, ; 6 and 7.
"But if he were, ho must endure the
evil ofliving ulder sovereign who will
issue such commands. 1t does not follow
that neighboring coutries must submit to
be infested with Incendiaries and assassns
because men are obnoxious TO punishment
in their own country, for becoming des-
rous to 90 through life with bloodless
hands and a quiet conscience. The Pa
risians thought themselves bound to
obey Charles TX. when he ordered them
TO massacre the Huguenots. Supposng
they had obeyed a similar order tomassa-
!; ere the Huguenots in England, would
such an order have been deemed ayalid
? plea on one of them being arraigned in
the Queens Bench2 1t might have been
peaded TO an accusation of murder in
!. France-it would have been good as be-
tween the criminal and his own sovereign
but hardly, | suspect; have been deemeC
40 by Queen Elizabeth's Judges. The
simple reason would have been tina
Charles TX. had no jurisdiction in Eng
land"
Mr. Clay's late supposition made in tn
Senate about sending "his man Charles
2 10 commit an act oftrespass on his neigh
\ bors property, is finely answered in tn
r following:
The distinction that an act valid as TO on,
. NAV be void as to another is entirely famil
, lar. A man who orders another TO com
mta trespass, orappIoves of trespas
I already committed for his benefit, may u
v hound to protect his servant, while
a would take nothing from the liability
the servant tothe party injured. As to hiI
|. ii CO Id merely have the effect addIn
& another defendant, who might be mad
e joigtly OF severallyliable with the actua
c wrong doer A case in point IS mentor
e ed VatteI, B. 3, CHI 2, Is IfORe sove
o Notwithstanding officer tomak
.e enlistments.in the dominion tof anoth'
Is 10 time ofpeace between them, the offic'