Lexington union. (Lexington, Miss.) 1838-18??, 1841-03-13


iered ia the afray. Anc there were
reasons to believe that Mcleod was
particeps criminis. He was afterwards
arrested a second time, Upon the EVIL
aence then presented, he was imprisoned
10 await his trial. There was no inva-
sion of British territory to selze or take
him. But, upon his being voluntarily
within our territory, he was arrested as
any citizen of the United States, charged
with similar ofsnce, might have been
We know Of no law Of nations that would
exemp. man from arrest and imprlson.
ment for offences charged TO be committed
against the "peAce and dignity" of state
because he is subject Of Great Britain,
or because he committed the chine at the
instigation or under the authority Of Brit
ish provincial officers; much less DO we
know Of any law that would justify the
President to deliver him up without trial,
at the demand, and upon the assertion as
TO facts, of any agent of the British Gov
ernmeut. Ii we had been ut open war
with Great Britain, and Mcleod had
committed the offences charged, then he
might have fallen under the rules and
regulations Of war, and been treated as a
prisoner OF the U. s. Government, and
would have been subject 10 the laws Of
nation in war. Blu, as the alledged
criminal acts. in which Mcleod is charg.
ed 10 be implicated, we're com ni,ted in
profound peace, it is crime, as far as ne
may be concerned, solely against The
"peace and dignity" Of the State OF New
York, and her criminal jurisdiction is
complete and exclusive. If the crimes
committed be such to make man hostis
humani generis, an outlaw, a pirate, in the
legal deception Of the term, then, under
the law of the nations, the United States
courts and tribunals would have jurisdic-
ton. Blu: the offence charged IN this
case, committed as it was in time of peace
as far as this individual was concerned,
was one purely against tho ler loci, and
coming exclusively within the criminal
jurisdiction of the tribunals Of New York.
The minister, in his letter Of the
18th December, 1910, says: SIT is quite
notorious TINT Mr.. Mcleod was not one
of tho party engaged in the destruction Of
the steamboat Caroline; and that the pre-
tended charge upon which he has been
imprisoned res:s only upon the perjured
testimony Of certain Canadians, outlaws,
and their abbetiors,n &c. This may
perchance, ell be 50 but it would be
asking ogreat deal TO require an Ameri-
can court to yield jurisdiction, and sur
render up prisoner charged with often
ces against the law; upon the mere ipSc
Dirt Of any man, no matter how high in
authority. Whether Mcleod be guilty
or not guilty is the very point upon which
an American inry alone have right 10
decide. Jurisdiction in State tribunals
oper criminal cases, and trial by a jury
of the peneu, are essential points ia Amer
lean Jurisprudence; and it is a total mis-
apprehension as TO the nature Of our sys.
TEN to suppose that thera is any right in
the Federal Executive 10 arrest the YER
dict OF the one, OF thwart the jurisdiction
OF the other II such a power existed,
and were exercised, il would etfectuaIIy
overthrow, and upon vital point, the sep
arate sovereignty and independence Of
these States. The Federal Executive
might be clothed with the power to deliv-
or up fugitiVes from justice for offences
committed against a foreign State; blu,
even then it might not DO obligatory TO do
80, unless it were made matter Of treaty
stipulation. This duty and right in an
Executive has generally been considered
as dormant, until made binding by treaty
arrangement. But when, the matter IS
reversed, and demand is made, not OF
fugtives from justice for offences commits
ted against foreign power, but for the
Liberation of man charged with offences
against the peace and dignity Of one Of
our own States, then il is that the demand
becomes preposterous ia the extreme.--
The fact that the offences were committed
under the sanction of provincial authorl-
ties does not alter the case, unless we
were in state Of war. In such cases as
the present, the power to deliver up could
not be conferred upon the Federal Execu
tive by treaty stipulation, 1t could only
be conferred in those cases over which
jurisdiction is clearly delegated by the
Federal Constitution; such, for instance
as treason, which is an offence against the
conioined sovereignty of the States, as
defined in the Constitution. Over all ca. |
ses except those defined in the Constitu- |
ton, and those coming clearly under the !