Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1841-06-05
TIE SURRENDER OF MITCHELL

Tho following correspondence passed be-
tween the Governor General of Canada, and
the Governor Of New York, on the occasion
of the surrender Of Mtcl,c', to answer to
the charge Of felony committed in the State
of New York. 1t is gratifying to sec the
promptness with which tho Governor of
Canada renders his aid, in fur,herancc of the
cause of justice, and in bringing to push
ment man guilty of an offence which is
punishable by the laws of all countries. We
are sorry not to be able to say, that acts of
this sort are habitually reciprocated by the
executive authorizes of this country. 1t will
be rccollected that In recent case in which
Dr.. Holmes, charged with notorious and
most atrocious murder, made his escape to
Vermont, and was there arrested, and his
surrender being demanded by the Executive
of Lower Canada, it was decided after q
long argument, that he could not be legally
given up, because there is no treaty stipula-
ton requiring it between the two countries.
This decision appeared 10 us to show much
greater regard to mere theoretic principle,
which has no foundation in practical utility,
than to the acquisitions of justice, and the
welfare and security Of society. We had an
Impression that the authority of Gov. Seward
as having adopted the principle in similar
case, was cited IN support of this decision
But OF this We were not positive, and We
must presume that the impression was err
roneous, as i, is not to be supposed that he
would have requested Lord Sydenl'am, il
a case of mere commity between two govern
ments, to act upon principle which ht
had himself refused to recognize in simia
case.
Tic Governor of Canada has taken tn
occasion, in manner not very apt or ap
-. propratc, TO exprcssc his opinion on tn
propric,y of retaining Mcleod in custod
for trial, on the charge of an offence whic
;, has been publicly avowcd and justified b.
n his Government. Although we do not per
!. ceivc the pertincncy Of expressing this OPT
'. Mon on this occasion, or in this connexior
o we do not find fault with the opinion l,scl
!. On the contrary, we concur fully in tho opir
y ion expressed, for reasons which we hay
o. already explained in our remarks upon tn
case, and Gov. Stewards answer to It al
$. pears to us entirely unsatisfactory. Accort
T. ing to him, in case arising out Of an act
ne hostility committed by order of the milital
No authorities of Great Britain, and express
u u avowed and justified by the Government
on tina, country, the question whether the a
ed were justified under the circumstances,
no no the laws of nations or not, and if not SO ju
,m tilted, whether subordinate officer, acti
u.s. under the orders Of his superior, is punis
'a' able for the act--are to be decided by il
he of N. York, taken from the inhabitants
'er siding on the border. Gov. Seward assul
, %, Lord Sydsnham, that if in the opinion
apps the Jury, the assumption Of the responsible
or; of his offence by his government ought
'he relieve him from personal responsibility,
he will be acquitted. This assurance may
lth very conscicntiously given by Gov. Sewa
' but it does not satisfy US that this mode
red dealing with questions, which are stric
The national, and on which in many suppose
ial. cases, not unlikely to arise, may rest the