, 1841-07-10

and destruction of the Caroline. The sub
ject is treated Of by Vattel, under the heac
"of the concern a nation may have in III,
actions OF her citizens book ii, chap. 6
page l6l.. I,shall read sections IS, IA, anc
IS:
"However, as it is impossible" says the
auther, .''for the bes. regulated State, or fol
the most vigilant and absolute sovereign &c
model at his pleasure all the actions Of hi.
subject, and to confine them on every occa
SION TO the most exact obedience, it would be
unjuststo impute to the nation or the sover
eign every fault committed BY the citizens
We ought not, then, 10 say, in general, thai
We have received an injury from a nation
because VIC have received il from one of il:
members.
'Butif a nation or its chief approves and
rsisees the cc- :. pc individual, IL then be.
comes a public ""7ss,n. and the injured par.
ty is then to consider the nation as the real
author of The injury. of which the citizen
was perhaps only the instrument.
"F the offended State has in her porer the
indiuidual uho has done the injury, she may.
,rirhout scruple, bring him 10 justice. and pun.
ISL him. If he has escaped, and returned
to his country, she ought to apply TO his
sovereign TO have justice done in the case.
Can any thing in the world be clearer
The author puts the case distinctly. The
nation injured ought not to impute 10 the
individual citizens. but if such friendly SOW
ereign shall recognise the acts as his own,
il then becomes 4 national concern. But
does such a recognition wash away the guilt
Of the offender. and release him from the
punishment due TO his offence under the
Jurisdiction Of the country whose laws he
has violated. Let Waite! answer this ques-
ton. He saws: s.If the attended STATE has
in her gouer the iadiriiudl wko has done the
injuru. she MAJ, uithout scruple, bring him
10 justice and punish HIM" There is the di.
rect, plain, and palpable authority. And
here permit me to add that think | can
prove that. according 10 sound reason, the
principle is correct; and that the question
would now be 50 decided by our courts, even
if the law of nations had been silent on the
subject. This not only is, but ought TO be,
the principle of public law.
Mr.. Webster. IN his letter to Mr.. Fox Of
the e4ih of April. tells the British Minister
hat the line Of frontier which separates the
United States from her Bri.1nnic Maiesty's
North American provinces, sis long enough
10 divide the whole Of Europe into halves"
This is true enough. Now. by admitting
the doctrine of NatteI TO be incorrect and
unfounded. on what consequences are we
forced? beg Senators TO consider this ques-
ton. The line which separates US from the
British possessions is a line long enough TO
divide Europe into halves. Heaven knows
| have no desire TO see 4 rebellion in Canada.
or the Canadian provinces annexed to the
United States: hut no event in iuturity is
more certain than that those provinces are
destined 10 be ultimately separated from the
British empire. Let n civil war come, and
let every McNab who shall then have any
command in the British possessions along
this long line be permitted to send 4 military
expedition into the territory OF The United
State. whenever he shall believe or pretend
tina, it will aid in defending the royal authori-
" against those who are resisting it, and war
between Great Britain and the United States
becomes inevitable. A British subject ma
rauding under the orders Of his superior Of
ficer on this side Of the line is seized IN the
very act. Well. what is TO be done? SUP
pose we are to wal, until we can ascertain
whether his Government chooses to recog-
Mise his hostile or criminal act, before We can
inflict upon him the punishment which he
deserves for violating our laws. If 1t should
recognize his act. the jail door IS Immediate
" to be thrown open; The offender, II may be
murderer, take his flight TO Canada, and we
mus, settle the question with the British Gov
Such is the doctrine advanced by
the British Government and our own Secre-
,ary of State. This principle would, as
saw, lead us inevitably into war with that
power. What can be done in a state OF
war? In that case, the laws of wal provide
that persons invading our territory who are
captured. shall be considered and treated as
prisoners of war. But while the two coun-
tries continue at peace, a man taken 10 the
Aaoront act of invasion and violence cannot
made a prisoner Of war. Mcleod, how
ever. is moi to be treated on this principle,
and punished under our laws if he be guilty,
lest we should offend the ma esty OF England.
The laws of New York are to be n%uIiied,
and the murderer is 10 run at large.
But if the principle laid down by 'attel
TT $500 rnn