The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1841-02-16

submits TO il finally sinks down into dwelling mbeci
lily. Ii representation Of the state OF things az
Schlosser, and the conduct OF those who had coho'
of the Caroline, had first been made 10 the proper Au
thoriles of New York or Of the United States, thea
there would have been show at least OF respect
for sovereignty and Independence, and dsposi-
ton TO treat equal But in this case, as y 70
treat authorities with contempt there was no pre-
lminary demand or representation made
II was hoped that the outrage was perpetrateu py
party in sudden heat and excitement upon their own
responsibility But the British Minister now avows
that ''the act was the public act OF persons ooey"s
the constituted authorities of her Malesiys Province,
and again arms that iii public act OF persons
in her Majestys service obeyng the orders OF their
superior authorities. 49,
fths had been the first and only point OF collision
with Great Britain it might not have excited such IN
teres but there assumption IN most OF our inter
course with that great power, revolving TO the pride
and spirit Of Independence in free people II II be
her desire preserve peace her true policy would be
10 do Justice and show that courtesy TO equals which
she has always demanded from others. The commit
do desire to press views this part OF the sub
ject particularly demand has been made by our
Government upon the Government OF Great Britain
for explanation as to the outrage COMMITTED the an
swer to which il is hoped will prove satisfactory
As to the other points presented in the demand
made by the British Minister for the >. liberation OF
Alexander Mcleod, the committee believe the iac's
Of the TO be- that the steamboat was seized ana
burnt as stated before, and that citizen or citizens
there TO induce belief that mcleod was
parficeps crinlins He at first arrested and up
on various testimony being taken, was then dschaIs
ed. He was afterwards arrested second time' "
on the evidence then presented, he was imprisoned 70
await his trial There was invasion OF British ter
ritory seize or take him. But up IN ms being No
UNFAIRLY within territory, he was arrested as any
citizen of the United States, charged win similar
| offence might have been. We know OF no law oil
nations that would exempt man from arrest and im.
prisonment for offences charged to be communion
against the peace and dignity OF State because
he is subject Of Great Britain, or because nc com
mted the crime the insgation or under the aotno
riiy Of British Provincial officers much less do we
know of any law that would justify the PRESIDENT 70
deliver him up without trial, at the demand anu upoh
the assertion To facts of any agent OF tue pr,'s
Government LII We had been al open war WIN otca'
Britain, and Mcleod had committed re onen.es
charged then he might have fallen under tue iu'ss
and regulations of war; and been trea'eu as p,'s
| of the United States Government, ana wou'u n.e
been subject to the laws of nations IN war ,ut as nc
,Iteged criminal acts in which Mcleod Is charged 70
be implicated were committed in profound peace, y
a crime as far as he may be concerned solely against
the peace and dignity OF the state OF New io,h'
siye If the crimes committed be such a. to make
man hossis humdni genns--an outiaw--a pirate, In
the legal acceptation of the term then under the law
of nations the United States courts and tribunals
would have jurisdiction. But the offence charged IN
this case committed it in Time of peace as far
as this individual was concerned, was one purely
against the ie loci and coming exclusively within the
criminal jurisdiction of the tribunals Of New ork
The Minister in his letter of the 18th December,
1870 says: 1T is quite notorious that MIR, Mcleod
of the party engaged in the destruction OF
the steamboat Carone and that the pretended charge
upon which he has been imprisoned rests only upon
the perured testimony of certain Canadians, outlaws
and their abetors,h &c. This may perchance all be
so but it would be asking great deal to require an
American yield jurisdiction, and surrender up
prisoner charged with offences against the law, upon
IL s.k, . hsrrh
in authority. Whether Mcleod be guilty not
guilty is the very point upon which an American jury
alone have right to decide Jurisdiction in STATE
tribunals criminal cases, and trial by jury 81
the renue essential points in American jurispru-
dence. And it is total misapprehension as TO the
nature of our system to suppose that there any night
in the Federal Executive to arrest the verdict OF the
one, thwar the jurisdiction of the other If such
power existed, and were exercised, il would eiec-
tually overthrow and upon vital point the separate
sovereignty and Independence of these States.
he Federal Executive might be clothed with pow
to deliver up fugitives from justice for offences com
mtted against foreign State, but even then 1t might
not be obligatory 10 do So unless IL were made matter
Of treaty stipulation. This duty and right in an Exc
cutive has generally been considered dormant, un-
til made binding by treaty arrangement But when
the matter reversed, and demand Is made, not Of
fugtves from Justice for offences committed against
foreign power but for the Liberation of charged
with offences against the peace and dignity Of one OF
States, then il is, that the demand becomes
preposterous in the extreme. The fact the offences
were committed under the sanction of provincial au-
thortes does not alter the case unless we were IN a.
state of In such the present, the power
to deliver up could not be conferred upon the Federal
Executive by treaty stipulation II could only be con
ferred in those cases which jurisdiction clearly
delegated by the Federal Constitution. Such, for I'M
stance treason which is offence against the con-
Joined sovereignty of the States as defined IN the
Constitution. Over all except those defined IN
the Constitutions and those coming clearly undes the
Ia & has tatpe hay xc
and the trial and punishment for offences against
them incident to their separate sovereignty II Is
not pretended in this that there is any treaty
stipulation under which the demand is made; and the
Federal Executive, under our system, has no power
but what is conferred by the Constitution or by spe
cia law of Congress. In the former It IS declared
that the Executive power is vested in President OF
the Uned States and that power is then to be point
ed out and defined by special laws passed from time to
time imposing such duties thought proper and
cxpedient by Congress
Your committee deem il dangerous for the Execu-
tive to exercise any power over subect-matter not
conferred by treaty or 10y law; and TO exercise IT IN
any in conflict with Stale jurisdiction, would be
worse than dangerous it would be usurpation.
But your committee torbcar TO press these points
further at present and they would not have said as
much on such clear questions Of international law
but that in this case the demand for liberation has
been made by the accredited agent of great power
and under circumstances Of peculiar aggravaon and
excitement
! nave otHtI points VI uihNith't 1ioot i'ii
ain which add interest to every question that arises
between at present. Neither our Northeastern nor
Northwestern boundaries yet settled with her and
| the subject is not entirely free from difficulty, She
has recently seized vessels and exercised power
inroping the right Of search, under the pretext Of
suppressing the foreign slave trade, which, If persc
vercd in, will sweep our commerce from the coast of
| Africa, and which is incompatible with our rights
pn&er she has Gesspyly in her inter.
rights TO property, on subject-mater vital to
| one half the States of this Confederacy and which
considering her military position at Bermuda and her
growing power in the West Indies is Of the last inn
] InrI ance To- natin IL iI,l.