Southern Argus. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1834-1842, 1841-06-09


would not be produced,the counsel for the peo-
pie beng much in doubt as 10 the right or pro-
prety of disclosing that evidence in the pres
ent state ofthe prosecution.
Mr.. Bradley then rose 10 address the Court |
lie remarked that this was the first attempt |
ever made to introduce new principle in e- |
gslation-that ofholding individuals personally |
responsible for acts done in obedience to the |
constituted authorities of their country; prln-
cpe whose magnitude and Importance could
scarcely be appreciated, and which, If estab-
lished, would effect revolution in civic and ma
tional relations whose tremendous consequent
ces no eye could foresee and no judgment right
ly estimate.
II is the right Of Government e said, TO COM
mand; the duty ofall subject to the govern
| ment to obey. In a state Of nature each lnci-
vidual man is sovereign--regulatng his con-
duct only by his own conscience, his ovid judy
ment and his own power. Nations are in this
respect precisely like individuals in the state
supposed; the individuals composing them sur
render to a certain extent their free right of
action as among themselves, but each nation
regulates its own conduct By its own wisdom,
It's own sense ofrght, and its own power to
sustain itself in the course IT thinks proper to
adopt.
The sovereign authority to decide must be
vested somewhere-ina single individual las in
despotic governments, in 4 combination ofsov-
ereign and legislators,as in limited monarches
and in a temporary power, emanatng directly
from the people, as in the United States. But
wherever nresides, the authority must be SUI
prcme, and the duty of the subject or citizen to
obey is imperative. The former cannot be de-
Med the latter cannot be withheld, without
| destruction of the social cOmDact,
If the duty required is deemed unjust or OPP
pressive, the subject may reason against it,and
thus seek TO effect change of purpose or he
may resist his obligation by force, and in rev.
olutinn overthrow the power which commands
him TO do what he deems unwise or wrocg.--
But while that power exists and is recognized,
its mandates must be obeycd, and there is no
power on earth TO absolye the subject from his
duty.
, It follows, then,as an inevitable consequen ce
that whatever a subject of one government
may do in obedience 10 the sovereign authority
Of ms country, and under durcss Of his aleg-
ance to that authority,he can never be held re-
sponsible for his act to any other power or gov
: ernment than that of his own country.
1.-THE act heis repaired to perform is wrong
ful or unjust to another country,s it not he that
: is to be held responsible he is but the humble
q .
: He has coded to his government the right to
/, Judge for him as to the expedency and the JUS
tce ofthe act that government is bound to
sustain him against a h the consequences of his
act, and 10 afford redress for the wrong fin the
, act there has been wrong committed.
This principle is recognized by all nations
which have treaties with other. 1t is recog-
nized, mutually,by the United States and Great
Britain. They have acknowledged sovereign
; ", each in the government Of the Other, as re-
/ CARDS its own citizens or subjects, and each is
; eStopped from denying immunity to the citizens
or subjects of the other for acts done in obedi-
ence TO commands emanating from the recog-
nized sovereign authority of the nation.
The state of New York itself is bound thus
TO recognize the sovereignty of Great Britain
Her common law is adopted by our tribunals
in Il hundred ways her national existence is
known and admittcd-the courts, the Legisla-
ture itself and all the authorities are concluded
from denying the sovereignty Of Great Britain
What remains then! An aggression upon
the state Of New York by The kingdom of
Great Brltain-by the constituted authorities
fthat kingdom.
twas violation ofneutraiity-an aggres-
sion upon our soil; requiring redress indeed,
and affording a just theme for indignant elo-
qucnce; but still an aggression by Great Brit
ain, and demanding redress from her, as it was
the act other constituted authorities.
Nations alone can preserve or violate neu-
trality. That cannot De done by subjects obey
ing the orders OF their Sovereign.
! A violation of neutrality is the act of ono
! State against another. Ii may be committed
by individuals indeed, but those individuals are
/ acting under duress ofther allegiance they
are not free agents, but bound by an impera-
tive duty which all men owe.
The crime, therefore, if there be crime, at
taches not to them but to the authority under
which they act-the nation of which they are
the instruments and from that nation must re-
dress be sought.
Tic documents read this morning prove the
national character of the act. The license of
the Caroline was na.ional-the violation ofthat
license was a national wrong, al d must have
national redress.
Time compels US here to close our sketch.
Mr. Bradley commented with great force upon
, the idea that has been thrown out of nationar
or state dignity requiring the punishment Of
M'Leod, and, with most eloquent course OF
! remark upon the consequences that would at
tend the introduction Of this principle, of indi.
. vidual responsibility for national wrong, con.
\ Guided speech in which it is but truth to saw
I that he did ample justice to his client and his
# cause.
When he finished it was past IL o'clock.anf
G we were obliged to leave the Court.l