The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1841-06-24

what have Ia say on the subject oil lnuuuai iesPo
sbility. ! refrain for the present. from pursuing II
further and only add that the issue should be present.
ed fairly the nation it really exsts--as one 10
which the Administration ask and insist upon the re-
sponsibiy of the Government OF Great Britain; ana
their opponents, looking away from that Government
fix the responsibility upon Mcleod alone. Such Is
| the case presented 10 the American people. they
will find difficulty in making up their oanion up
on II.
| With these predatory remarks proceed 10 consider
the matters which have been presented IN this debate
And il well 10 look the precise questions an CON
troyersy. We not now discussing the question
whether Great Britain is correct in her pretenson that
the destruction Of the Corolne ustifable as an
act Of sefdeience--as employment OF force for the
purpose of defending the British territory from the I'M
provoked attack Of band Of English rebels and Anne
ricans whether, as the Government Of the United
States regards II, il was most unJusttable invasion
in time Of peace Of the territory of the United States.
This subject is not connected with that now under
discussion Nor necessary to inquire whether an
act done originally without authority from the Gov
eminent is exempt from the consequences Of personal
responsibility, by reason OF subsequent recognition
| oft by the Government for such exists. The
Secretary of State, in his note to Mr., Fox, the
following language: The Government of the United
States entertains doubt that, after the ayowa of
this transaction public Transaction authorized and
undertaken by the British authorities, individuals
concerned in il ought not by the principles of public
law and the general usage OF civilized States, to be
holden personally responsible in the ordinary tribunals
1
instructions to Mr. Crlttenden he says " That in
divdua forming part of public force, and acting
der the authority of his Government is to be held
answerable, private trespasser maleiactor, is
principle OF public law sanctioned by the usage OF all
civilized nations, and which the Government of the
United States has no inclination to dispute" The
inquiry then is is this doc tTlne thus ayowed and
knowledged by the Secretary of State, sound doctrnel
Is it in accordance with reason and sustained by a
thoriiyl Or, is insisted by Senator'S is il OPP
posed to the law of nations} Is IT, and ought il to be-
repudiated by the rules of public lawl propose to
answer this inquiry, by reference to general acknowl
edged principles, independent of ptecedens and then
to sustain the views taken by the American Govern
ment by undspued authorities and presidents of
tablished authority. And there several views
which may be taken of the subject each Of which is
decisive.
The exemption from personal responsibility, in the
ordinary legal tribunals of individual under the
circumstances stated in the communication OF the Sec
rotary of State, the result consequence of two
plain reasonable, and wellesablished principles of
international law. They the following
| |. The right of every independent, acknowledged
Government, as between itself and other Governments,
to require of its own citizens the performance of
deemed by necessary proper 10 promote protect
| It's real or supposed rights interests. This right
grows out of its recognised and admitted independence
and sovereignty. Itmus judge for itself what its
honor or interests require subject to Just account
ability to other nations who may be affected by lis
acts. IL those acts ustfable against the whole
/
the law which has been violated is the law of nations
which provides the redress the injured may seek
But whether the acts required TO be done are,
spect to other nations lawful or unlawful whether
they justlfable not the view of the law of ma
tons, are inquiries which the citizen upon whom the
requsition is made, only TO his Gorern-
ment With such questions, so far as they relate 10
the duty of citizen acting under the authority and
| by order of his Government, as part of military
force, other Governments cannot intermeddle. In
i Ia IN nd he M horIty
to make the rcquiston is complete Ii II were not So
every Government whose rights were invaded would
be at liberty to judge as to the duty which the citizens
of other Governments owe TO their supreme
hority. Each would have the right to determine for
another independent Government the extent Of its
power over its own citizens and so there would be
practically end of the sovereignty of every State ;
and, following out the doctrine to its legitimate results
il would empower any Government Who should be in
open, solemn with another to regard and treat (f
it so pleased) all whom IT took in respassers
wrong doors and maefactors and subject them to the
rules of municipal law, and to the ordinary tribunals
of justice for if the nation invaded look beyond
the nation invading and treat individuals private
trespassers they do it in all cases whether that of
isolated act of force, that of an imperfect war;
that of solemn war preceded by declaration of hos
Titles. They can try criminals all prisoners of
war, and, if found guilty, execute them as private
indicators Such doctrine would be abhorrent
to sound reason as 1t il opposed 10 all authority II
follows then necessarily, from these considerations
III u
legitimate acknowledged Government for the avowed
purpose of enforcing It's real supposed rights against
another nation, that Government $50 far all other
Governments concerned) require of its citizens
that they organize for such purposes, and engage in
the objects OF such organization This is the right Of
The Government.
2 The corresponding duty of obedience by the CT
tzen follows from the right of his Government TO
qulre obedience. Other nations cannot inquire whe-
Their the citizen is under an obligation to obey the
| Government, whether could q
lawfully required aid in the performance Of the
demanded Of him They must treat bis participation
in them duty he to his Government He
may he may not stand excused to his own Govern
men for disobedience but as il regards all others if
he performs the required acts, he does than
what his duty to aid his country requires and JUS
titles. This duty right to engage in these acts fol-
lows from the command of his Government, which he
must obey IT. then armed force is directed by one
nation to be raised TO act upon another nation the ci
tzens of the former under obligation far as all
foreign nations concerned to become part ofsuch
force and to engage the objects for which they
organized. This Is The duty Of The cihsens
From these two principles the following INFERENCE
CONCLUSION is drawn, being necessary inevitable,
and Just, viz that such citizens forming part of such
organized force, and acting under such national
authority cannot be held TO for their acts per-
formed under that authority, as private wrongdoers
or malcfacors. Such result follows from the admit.
ted principle of the right of the Government to exact
obedience and the corresponding duty of the citizen TO
yield it, The performance of the act is demanded of
him by lawful authority and obedience becomes du
ly, the discharge of which ought to make
hun liable trespasser who commits wrongful act
Of his free will and upon his own responsibility.
Indeed if this he not Just inference, these two con-
sequences would ensue, both of which would be repu
! dated by the common understanding, justice, and
! laws Of all civilized nations. One Is, that whenever
Government employs force in support Of s preten
SONS against another, the latter may judge for itself
to the right 10 that force in respect to the ct-
Gems of the former and treat them as personally
Individually responsible for the acts of their Govern
meni-a dncirine winch finds no snnnnrL from reasnn