Wheeling times and advertiser. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1839-1849, 1841-03-23

The Baltimore American holds the follow ing lnr.
cage ~ reference 10 tho Gu e Of Mcleod;
With regard to the case Of Ne LeoI. the prevail.
ns idea seems TO he that no interference eau take
place onihe part Of ts General Covernmen, wfihi The
Judicial proceedings Ofthe State Of New York. Il had
appeared 10 US that inasnueh az The British Govern.
meat had ayowed the oct fr which hc Is arm,cuct.
making II thereby q national act. the responsibility
II the offence was transferred from the individual
agent o the Government which sanctioned his doings
The view, however. il held that this plca cannot
avail Inc prisoner until At is made in his behalf
before the oouri-sO that he must he bropght TO
iru'.
ir Is further maintained Ly ,ome that IL the man
ne proved gully OF Tire oHence charged upon HIN,
The assumption of the responsibility of the nc, ON the
part of his g"Vernmeni Will still he unnvailinr 10
save him from the penalty of the violated Law. Tos
as the net was mciHn in Sc, The guilt Of it extends to
the agent as well as To tue principal. II a servan,
COMMITS murder ur then, lac - not excused by plead
ING the orders of his master for the crime.
The probability, however, - that Mcleod will be
acquitted; Us there appears 10 be direct evidence 10
show that be was present Ut the destruction Of the
caroline, The prisoner himself is W confident Of hi,
ability 10 establish the fncI that he declined the oler
ola change ofreRue. and chose that the trial should
take place at Loekpori. Whether hs acquitial MI
satisfy the British Government. or whether the fac
of has trial will. ia the view OF the British ministry.
invole the entire principle ofa refusal Of their de
mrnd for his Liberation. is matter which future event,
must determine.
1t be conceded that the avoxal by his govern
meni ofthe act charged upon Mcleod does not free
him from the guilt of participation. surprising him
guilty, then no diff uty j. involved IN The question q
State jurisdiction. For IL would amount TO the sam.
thing whether the prisoner 10 tried before a iribuua
Of New York or before U Court of the United States
The same laws would be applicable in either case
and the same penalty would lie incurred, in lhe event
OF conieInnaIiou. in the one as ia the other Nor doct
l. appear that the National Executive could inter
ere with the proceedings of the United States Cour
> with any great ~preprieiy Than the same anlhorir,
cah inlerpose in the case now, while il is under IN,
jurisdiction ola State.
The whole question seems 20 turn upon the poin
whether the nvowal Of tie British Government IA,
any eject to free The prisoner from his responsibility
p himself to his government. lie must however b
p brought To trial ia order that this question may b
tested. The case will cume up At Luckport. AIonda
next. Mr.. Criiienien, Attorney General Of the Unite
States hns gone TO attend the trial. and he is doubles
fully possessed OF the yiows of the American c ,bine
relative To the cnse. The assurance NAV be eyiden,
y entertained that every Thing will be done in III,
matter which the national honor aud the law OF nation
shall require.