Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1841-02-25


the States of he Confederacy. No great
er wrong can he done 10 the country than
invasion Of soil. IF it can be done with
irnpuniry at one point, and Oh one occa'
sion, it can be done al another, and the ma
ton that submits TO il, finally sinks down
into drvelling imbecility. If a represen-
talon of the state Of things al Schlosser.
and the conduct of those who had the con-
troll of The Caroline, had first been made
TO the proper authorities of New York, or
of the United States then there would have
been some show at least of respect for our
80, ereisnty and independence, and dis
position 10 treat US as an equal. But IN
this case, rs if to treat our authorities with
contempt, there was no preliminary de-
mand or representation made.
Ii was hoped that the outrage was per-
pelralcd 10y parlyin sudden heat and ex-
clemenr, upon their own responsibility.
But the British Minister now avOws that
'.the act was the public act OF persons obey
ing the constituted authorities OF her Ma
iesty's Province" and again alfirms that
.sit was a public act Of persons in hcr Ma
jesly's service, ohcying the orders of their
superior authorities"
If,his had been tho first and only point
of collision with Great Britain, it might,
moi have excited such interest, but there is
assumption inmos' ofour intercourse with
that great power, revolving to the pride ard
spirit of independence in a free people. II
il he her desire 10 preserve peace, her true
policy would he 20 do justice, aud show
that courtesy 10 equals which she has al
ways demanded from others. The COM
miItee do moi desire to press views on this
part of the subject, particularly as de-
mand has bcen made by our Government
upun the Government Of Great Britain for
explanation as 10 the outrage committed,
The answer TO which ii is hoped will prove
satisfactory.
As to the oIhcr points presented in the
demand made by The British Minister for
The .liheraiion" of Alexander Mcleod. the
committee believe the facts Of the case TO
he, that the steamboat was seized and
burnt as stated before, aud that a citizen
or citizens of New York were murdered in
the ahray. And there were reasons to in.
duce belief that Mcleod was partiecps
criminis. He was al first arrested, n
upon various testimony being taken, was
then discharged. He was then after
forwards arrested second time. Upon
the evidence then presented he was impri-
soncd 10 await his trial. There was no in
vasion of British territory 10 seize or take
him. Du, upon his being voluntarily with
in our territory, he was arrested as any
citizen of the United States, charged with
a similar offence, might have been. we
know of no law Of pations that would ex-
enpt man from arrest and imprisonment
for offences charged 10 be committed against
lhc "peace and dignity" Of a Stale, be-
cause he is subject of Great Britain, or
because he committed the crime at the in
stioaliou or under The authority OF British
Provincial officers; much less do we know
of any law that would justify the President
10 deliver him up without trial, at lhe de-
mand and upon The assertion as TO facts,
of any agent of the British Government.
If we had been at open war with Great
Britain, and Mcleod had committed The
offences charged, then he might have fall
1 9anc-been~rrseated eas prisoner Of tie o.
States Government, aud would have been
subject 10 the laws Of nations in war. But
as the alleged criminal acts, in which
Mcleod is charged TO be implicated, were
committed in profound peace, it is crime,
as far as lie may be concerned, solely
against the "pcace and dignity" of the State
of New York, and her criminal juristic-
ton is complete and exclusive. If the
crimes committed be such as 10 make
man hostis humani generis-an outlaw-a
pirate, in the legal acceptation Of The term,
then under The law of nations, The United
States courts and tribunals would have =
risdiclion. But the o[leuce charged in this
case committed as it was in time of peace,
as far as this Individual was concerned,
was Que purely against The lee loci, and
coming exclusively within the criminal ju-
risdiction of the tribunals Of New York.
The Minister, in his letter Of the 18th of
December, 1910, says: sit is quite noto-
rious that Mr.. Mcleod was no, one of the
party engaged in the destruction of the
steamboat Caroline; and that the pretend.
ed charge upon which he has been mp,i-
soncd rcsls only upon the perjured tesli-
mony of certain Canadians, outlaws and
their abettors," &c. This may perchance
ali be SO; but it would be asking a great
deal to require an American court to yield
Jurisdiction. and surrender up prisoner
charged with offences against the law, up
on the mere ipSe dirt Of any man. no mat
ter how high in authority. Whether
Mcleod be guilty or not guilty, is The We
ry point upon which an American jury
alone have a right to decide. Jurisdiction
in Stale tribunals ouer criminal cases. and
trial by jury Of the uenue, are essential
points in American jurisprudence. And i,
is total misapprchension as 10 the nature
Of our system, to suppose that there is any
right in the Federal Executive to arrest
the verdict OF the one, or lhwart the iuris-
diction of the other. If such power ex-
isled, and were exercised, it would effec-
lually overthrow, and upon a vital point,
the separate sovereignty and independence
of these States. The Federal Executive
might be clothed with power te deliver up
fugiIivcs from justice for Offences commit.