The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1836-1851, 1841-03-03

ed, solely against the "peace and dignity
Of the State of New York, and her crl-
lninal jurisdiction is complete and exclu-
sive. If the crimes committed be such
as to make man hostis hunaani genus
an outaw-a pirate, in the legal accepta-
tion of the term, then under the law of
: nations, the United States courts and tri-
bunals would have Jurisdiction. But 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 the ler loci, and coming exclusive
ly within the criminal Jurisdiction Of the
tribunals of New York.
The Minister, in his letter of the 18th
December, 1910, says:
1T is quite notorious that Mr.. Mcleod
was not one of the party engaged in the
destruction of the steamboat Caroline;
and that the pretended charge upon which
he has been imprisoned rests only upon
the perjured testimony of certain Cana
dams, outlaws, and their abettors," &c.
This may, perchance, all be so; but it
would be asking great deal to require
an American court to yield jurisdiction,
and surrender up a prisoner charged with
Offences against the law, upon the mere
ipse dar,t of any man, no matter how
high in authority. Whether Mel Leod be
guilty or not guilty, is the very point upon
which an American jury alone have a
right to. decide. Jurisdiction m State tra-
5un.Ls over criminal cases.sand trial By q
jury of the ue1sue, are essential points in
American jurisprudence. And it is to-
tai misapprehension as to the nature OF
our system to suppose that there is any
right IN the Federal Executive to arrest
the verdict of the one, or thwart the ju-
risdiction of the other. If such power
existed, and were exercised, it would ef-
fectuaIy overthrow, and upon a vital
point, the separate sovereignty and inde.
pendsnce of these States. The Federal
Executive might be clothed with power to
deliver up fugltivcs' from justice for Of
fences committed against a foreign State,
but even then it might not be obligatory to
do 80 unless it were made matter of treaty
stipulation. Thissduty 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 fu-
gitives from Justice for offences commit
ted against a foreign Power, but for the
liberation of man charged with offences
against the peace and dignity OF one OF
our own States, then it is that the demand
becomes preposterous in the extreme
The fact that the offences were commit
ted under the sanction of provincial au-
thorities, 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
Executive by treaty stipulation. 1t could
only be conferred in 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 de-
fined in the Constitution. Over all cases
except those defined in the Constitution,
and those coming clearly under the laws
| of nations, the States have exclusive Ju-
rissliction and the trial and punishment for
offences against them are incident to their
separate sovereignty. 1t is not pretended
in this case that there is any treaty stlpu-
lation under which the delnann is made;
and the Federal Executive, under our
system, has no power but what is confer
red by the Constitution, or by special law
of Congress. In the former, it is declared
that sthe Executive power is vested in a
i, President Of the: United States and that
power is then to be pointed out and defn-
ed by special laws passed from time 20
time, imposing such duties as are thought
nroper and expediens by Congress.
Your committee deem it dangerous tor
tho Executive TO exercise any power over
a subiect.matter not conferred by treaty
or by law; and to exercise it n, any case
in conflict with State jurisdiction, would
be worse than dangerous; it would be
;, usurpation.
But your committee forbear 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
a great Power, and under circumstances
| q -,-,.,,,, ,,ofir, opd pycItpmnnt