Rutland herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1823-1847, 1841-07-20
DECISION IN TIE CASE OF M'LEOD
Tnr PRISONER NOT DISCHARGED.

An Extra from the office Of the y. Y American con
ans the Opinion of,he Supreme Cour, Of New York
sitting a, uuca in the matter of Alexander MLeod
who claimed 10 be discharged from custody, on the
ground that the offence with which The charged was
public act, performed IN obedience To orders from Of
hcers appointed 10y the British Government, and that
the &C, has been adopted by that Government
It's own act
The Court have decided against the discharge Of the
prisoner without trial, The Opinion of the Court
delivered by Justice Cowen 1t fills nearly eight col
umns N the American. The concluding paragraphs
are as follows
When Grand Jury have charged that manhas
committed murder in this State can imagine case,
whether the charge related to the time Of open public
war or peace, in which he claim exemption from
inal lfhe show that he in truth acting a sol
Ger IN time OF public war, the jury will acquIt him
Tie Judge will direct them to obey the law OF nations
which II undoubtedly part Of the common law So,
1.-THE accused were acting IA defence against indi
vdual invader OF his country. Bot above all things
important in the latter for tie jury to inquire
whether his allegation Of defence be not false color
able
They cannot allow act OF defence, the wiliul
pursuing even such an enemy though dictated by
efcgn authority into country at peace with tie SOW
ereeu Of the accused soekin. out tia, enemy aud ia
king his life Such indeed, be nothing bu, an &C,
ol,engeance II can be nothing but violation otter
riory, a violation Of the municipal law the faith OF
treaties and the law Of nations.
The government, Of the accused may appove,dipo-
macy may gloze but jury can only inquire whether
be party the deed or 10 any act OF llega yo-
!euce wlaok he knew would probably endangerhuma
life Il satisfied tina, he was not, sincerely hope
fhey may be- upon the evidence in the before US
they will thea have tie pleasant duty TO perform o.
pronounci0g him not guilty. Bot Whatever may be
Their conclusion, feel the utmost confidence that
the er,,bough foregner,Ni have 90 just cause
to complain that be has suffered wrong the hands
ar American jury.
Al our hands the prisoner had a ugh, 10 require al
answer upon the facts presented by has papers whe'h
eTln law he can properly be holden 10 ual. We have
had declaration bu, 10 examine aud pronounce uPo'
TIE legal character Of those facts, n order 20 s7us
ourselves Of the Jeaung they might have On 'he move
AMI important question submitted The examination
has led 10 ihe conclusion that we have no power &
cscAsIge The prisoner
lie mus, therefore sc remsn3e3 20 take bis inal O
Ae ordinary forms OF law
TIE teci o. ihis decision viii be % cause TIE pas
oasr 10 Re iuei on tie Indictment, by .4ry unless OBJ
csse a rs present form should he appealed o. 90
Count Of Errors ithe State seaalc,l as We a4ve uu4e
stood II would be-, iu Tie even, Of q decision -ae "a
Fie>eut g., the Supreme Couu 81 y. Nors and, shoe
ia Coau Of EfIors affirm tie present decision Or
usa the case would he canned Up d TIE supfeH
Court Of tac United siaies.
i mgsi he understood that the only question hei'i
lie svpfeme Cour vas, whether the prisoner Shouts
O. should not, b. discharged without trial Iley q
.esa Vat be ougA, not 10 be 80 dlsehaTged.-lN- !
'esf Commsroe