The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1841-07-01

IN, Al ADVANTAGES 10 do wrong Her march is along
the luminous path of justice and OF honor Eng
land be that Of graspng AMBITION oil ouirtaching fa
pacity and of wrong as WIDE as me al ou.
range of her empire Us, however, she must not as
sail with IMMUNITY. And, that we may be able to
meet her in the righteousness OF good cause, LEI us
take care that in this thing no alnt or blemsh rests
on the spotless ermIne OF our honor Let us beware
not To be diverted the false issue OF the case OF
Mcleod as viewed by the Opposition; but let US con-
,nue TO stand upon the lofty elevation Of truth and
Justice where like the knights in the old times oil
chyalry, we may abide lance in rest 10 defy the at
tacks of all challengers, confident IN reliance upon
our own good night, and the just Judgment OF God
This and not the mercenary pursuit of great chances,
is The principle which animates the pree Admins
tration in It's conduct towards England
is more than once insinuaed by the gentleman
from Pennsylvania that in this negotiation the Secre-
tary of State has set of motives, whilst not only
the deceased President of the United States, but the
present President also, have had different ones, and
passages Of patriotic declarations from the inaugural
addresses Of Gen Harrison and MI Tyler are CITED TO
this end. Let not the gentleman lay inns nauehhg
JUNCTION to his soul | assure him that, as wei
under the late Executive as the present, the Admins
traon has been animated in all It's parts by the same
unanimous spirit Of anxiety TO preserve the peace OF
the nited States, if II may be done with honor, ana
TO resolve all hazards To suffer no wrong on the part
of England or any other Power to 90 unredIessed.
Sir il remains only that briefly touch one other
subject in conclusion of the remarks which had con-
teulplatel submitting 10 the House. The gentleman
from Pennsylvania puts TO US very emPhaueaiiy tne
supposed dilemma In which the United states Wouiu
be involved either way, whether the Supreme Court
of New York shall override the plea of Mcleod and
send him his trial al bar, or whether on the olhef
hand that Court shall decide on The surrender OF c.
Leod have said already, and repeat, that VIII
not re at length that part of this case which has
been discussed in the Senate and touch upon il now
only far may be requisite TO the completeness OF
my'Ieply to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
could not but be amused to hear that gentleman la
mentng with such interesting sadness, the omission
of Mr. Webster to copy the language of Mr., Monroe
in the message quoted by him Cor rather OF Mr..
Adams whose words they were,) in making statement
of the principles which guide the foreign policy OF the
United States. Now it so happens that, IN the most
important and material part of his letter TO Mr. Fox,
Mr. Webster anxious te be right, and TO be right In
accordance with those principles of our foreign policy
which time and authority have sanctlhed, does follow
the precise language of one of the most celebrated OF
the STAGE papers OF Mr. Monroe But let that pass
The question is whether the United States are IN,
volye,i in any dilemma which human forecast could
have prevented
Mr. Fox demands the immediate release OF Mcleod;
10 this Mr. Webster replies that that IS impossblei
Mcleod is in the hands of the law, and by that law
only can he be discharged Ii is not for the United
States to loose his bonds by any summary interposi.
ton on their part His arrest, imprisonment, and
trial must take their course in the courts oil me STATE
of New York lin cerai contingencies OF the unl-
constitutional and limited power and 1t Is perfectly
well understood he present day. point OF Inter
national law that constitutional governments cannot
and will not lnterpose, arbitrarily to change the course
of municipal Justice tor the satisfaction OF any grey
ance real or supposed ola foreign Power This primer
pie has been recognised by England herself In most ce
LIBERATED case In the reign of Queen Anne the Gar
Peter Of Muscovy being aggrieved by an INJURY done
in England to his, Ambassador, Andrew Natlueof,
sent to demand redress, and this IN the peremptory
r ttatra dress. nnt
granted Blu, the Queens Government most nobly
replied that she could not grant the redress demanded
because II involved violation OF the law OF the iahd
and that she could do nothing duplicating the rights,
though it We're the meanes OF her subjects unless war
ranted 10y the law of the land. The Government Of
England was one Of constitution and of laws not OF
arbitrary powers To the effect, and with still
greater reason docs the Government ( the United
States say the present case that we cannot lawfully,
and therefore, if otherwise disposed we will not,
undertake by arbitrary TO arrest the constr
utonal action of the laws in the State OF New FORK
For If Queen Anne was bound Ivy the law OF the land,
how much more strictly is not the President OF tue Uni
ted States restrained within the limits of the Federal
Constitution
But in certain contingencies the Federal Govern
ment does contemplate the liberation of Mcleod
as thing 10 happen IN the course OF law ne may be
tined by jury and found not guilty Of Anticipation IN
the attack the Caroline. That Is one possibility,
and the gentleman from Pennsylya is altogether too
quick to decide that question upon his own imperfect
knowledge Of the facts. Sir Allan McNab, toi in
stance, positively that Mcleod was not pre-
sent Then jury, though 1t should find him to have
been present in the attack yet may give him the bene-
fit OF his plea in Justification, happened in the great
revolutionary case OF Prestons trial IN Boston. Or
the Supreme Court of New York may admit the force
OF that plea in tins preliminary stage Of the trial VI
the may find its way into the Supreme Court OF
the United States and thus be decided within this
Capitol Meanwhile, there is another view Of this
question which seems to have escaped the notice OF
gentlemen, but which after all, If regarded for mo-
ment and compared with the other views OF the case,
relieves the point of inter national law from all the !
confusion and obsrurlty IN which it is now enveoped
The Federal Government looks to the possible event
OF the Liberation of Mcleod by some lawful act OF It's
own, IN the discharge of its public duty 10 the whole
United States, of whose peace and honor 1t Is the
guardian. The contingency presupposes sundry con
dtons 1t presupposes that the attack on the Caro-
line was either previously commanded or subsequently
assumed by the British Government as national act
II presupposes that that attack, thus commanded OF
assumed, constitutes an act. OF war not, as some gem
tcnen have specifically commended, that II was war
Itscif nvolv the absurdty Of the two nations hnv-
my been from that day 10 this in state OF war but
thai II was as have said, an act of war-o insol,nn
or imperfect war, the books call II yet Involving
national respons bilty for the act itself and all rs
consequences just in the Of some isolated act
Of rcprsals retorsion, which our own Government
night order. 1t Iresupprses that IN such case
nation which IL aggneved by the military attack OF
another nation Is not justified by the custom 81 nations
or by common sense, stzlng upon private soldier
engaged in the attack and extorllng vengeance from
his poor person, for what he did under the orders OF
his Government which orders bound him imperative
ly in dlsobeying which he might be held to The pc
naltes OF treason, and in obeying which he was the
mere instrument of that Government.
Are these premises false in fact or in law II gen
tencn deny them, 10 do is TO fall inevitably into
this CONCLUSION that the United States has no claim
the English Government tor redress in the matter
OF the Caroline. lfthat was national act, you must
look tor redress account of ii to national RESPONSE
billy Ii YOU are OF opinion hat you have claim IN
this matter, as against the Blush Government, then
YOU may, ii you choose deal with the individuals en-