Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1842-03-21

enforced
But again. what was the decision in the case
OF the Amslod SO similar, in many respects, TO
that of the Creole Those revolted Spanish
slaves, after numbering" their owners, were cast
upon our shores. Were they demanded by Spain,
under comfy OF nations" No bu, under an
express treaty stipulation between the United
States and Spain--and it was because they could
not be legally brought within this stipulation, that
the claim was dismissed. Yet they, too, were, IN
the language of the despatch, "muIinecrs and
nurderers"-but The comfy ofpatons' reached
them not.
But there is no such comfy Of nations, even IN
cases OF clear and unquestioned crime, and where
neither the color "ncompaibe with ireedom,
nor the ANOMALOUS institution Of slavery, inter
ieres with right judgment.
1t was by stipulation in Mr.. jays treaty, and
only III virtue of that stipulation, that the United
States and Great Britain, for time, did agree TO
mutlln surrender of murderers and felons, lex
cept for political offences i but the stipulation
was Tor Il limited term Of years, mud was suffered
by both parties TO expire without renewal. Since
that, IN many instances, demands have been made
upon this government by the British authorities,
for the surrender of leons, and always been re-
fused thus showing that the treaty stipulation
was not, ms some have contended merely decara-
tory OF pre- existing national law, but the law ITSELF
without which no surrender could I've made We
specify merely the of the BdmberS, some
yeara ago, saved by the direct ncrposition Of the
INV officers of the general government-aiier
Governor Marcy, under an erroneous impression
of duty had ordered them to be surrendered to
the British consul and the more recent cases OF
tho fugitive murderers and house burners from
Canada whom all honest men would have been
too happy to send back 10 just punishment, but
whom, even such as they were, we could not,
without law surrender.
We have thus shown that the United States
government does not acknowledge the comfy
Of nations" to which the despach.appeals and
have thence inferred that, as Of general obIiga-
,ion, no such comfy" exists; and that, AT any rae,
il belongs not to us to invoke its application for
our benefit, when refuse it TO others.
We have also shown, by the example OF the
Martinique SLAYER, that the fact Of the alleged fell
ons being revolted slaves, would, in the port OF
free State, make difference and having shown
thus much, we might almost rest the case here
upon the principle that we tan only rgiIlluily nsk
| others to do unto us rs we do unto them.
! But stress is laid in the despatch upon the fuct
as reported in the captains protest, and by the
consul at Nassau tina, 'thc authorities of the is
land did actually interfere to free the slaves
and to enable them to dispense themselves beyond
| the reach Of the master of the vessel, or their
owners and this is urged as prominent among
| the reasons thar, in the Judgment of the Aineri-
can government, constitute this ga cleur case for
| indemnificaIion."
| Assuming the facts 10 be as set forth in this
matter, we might be quite ready to agree TINT such
proceeding on the part Of official persons is neh-
err discreet nor friendly, and should subject those
concerned in it to animadversion aud punishment
| by their own government; but can il aer the re-
lation in which these revOed slaves stood to the
| laws of the colony? Can il impair their rights,
or in any manner impose responsibility upon
them, or take away their remedies? That Great
Britain would express regret, that any of her mag
istrates had interfered officially to induce these
colored persons of the Creole to leave the vessel
! and seek aiety and freedom beneath the British
! heg, may be confidently anticipated, because of
Me unklnd feeling that such interference could
not fail TO occasion in the United States; but is ii
to be supposed, that without such interference
the slaves would have remained on board the Gre
ole, and gone voluntarily into the hopeless bond
uge of Louisiana sugar plantations?
Is it probable, that an island where there are
mutudes Of free colored persons vessel nrri-
| wing under such circumstances the Creole,
would not have enlisted oil their sympaihies and
efforts for the liberation and safely of those OF
| their own color? Are there no nbolilionists there
ready to sue ont writ of habeds corpus in behalf
| of each one Of those colored persons, whom the
captain of the vessel, renstaed in his command,
might seek to ,etain? And this brings us to an
other poht made in the despatch, that the author
tiles of Nassau ought 10 have aided the officers OF
the Creole in recaiming The slaves and carrying
them on to their ultimate destination.
Suppose the military guard, which, for time,
held the vessel, had compelled the slaves TO suit
nit, aud that when oil was ready for departure
the vessel should be boarded by an officer o: a
court, with process addressed alike 10 the Brit
ish military officer, and the American captain
commanding them to produce before the said cour
each and all Of these colored persons TO the end
thai inquiry might be mate in due course OF law
whether they were netting Of their own accord, OF
under what circumstances they were detained
must not that process have been obeyed and
| |, in pF tbp ri
of these people that desired TO remain in Nassau
must have been declared entitled TO do so?
But the despatch asserts, that because of The vi
olelice by which the vessel had been interrupted
in her voI age, aud carried into Nassau, she wa;
not properly within British jurisdiction, mt
should still have been considered us Oh her voyage
"nnd no, SUBJECT TO any inquiries by the British
aulbori les ms 10 what WINS her cargo. or whit III,
condition Of persons OH board"
Such, however, is not, we upprehcnd, the nSng'
of any country. II u vessel of my nntion shoult
put in here Tomorrow, either from stress of wealth
or OF seIZed by mutlneers, The custom house woul'
send lis officers on board, and report must be mad
J., of her cargo, destination, &c.
IT, too, while in our harbor, any offence q
crime were committed, such as smuggling, or muir
der, she would be held subject, we imagine, TO in
quiries by our authorities, and the condition OF per
sons on board would assurcdly be verified.
Once within port, the laws OF the country Il
; which il belongs attach however the vessel ma.
have reached there.
How otherwise can the mulnecrs OF The Iexa
vessel of war, who recently murdered their lieu
tenant in the port OF New Orleans, aud some q
| whom have been arrested, he punished! Tn
, murder WINS committed in our waters, and will b
/ punished by our laws.
f It seems clear, therefore, TINT however, on tn
score of dlscouresy and indiscreet ollicousness
r the anedged voluntary interference Of the magis
trntes TO set free the slaves" may be justly mad
:, a subject OF complaint, il eau in no wise be mag
, nifed into ground fol indemni6caton, much les
, into one for Mar.
OPINIONS IN GREAT BRITAIN.
, House of Lords, Monday, Feb. l4.--Lord Broug