Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1842-04-11
DEFERRED ARTICLES.
THE CREOLE CAsE-AGAIN.


ney General II he is the author, the article it.
self may probably be considered as deearativo of
the opinions of the cabinet, and is therefore wor-
thy of particular notice. AS we have not room
for the article entire, will summary state lis
positions Promising that the nutineers of The
Creole are to be treated mcr, NOT chatels, the
writer LAYS down the following doctrines:
LIST. There is no treaty stipulation between the
TWO countries for the reciprocal surrender of Grim
innls of any sort.
ID. That neither by the law nor the comfy of
nutions is there perject right to demand the sur
render of fugitiyes who have been proved guilty
of crimes confessedly against the laws of nature
aud of God there is only an imperfect right, the
denial of which is not Just cause for war.
81. There is no general and praclised comfy
of nations which requires the surrender OF Grim
inas of any kind. surrender may be made ca
graiia, upon the principle of reciprocity; but
these are special cases of comfy, which establish
ne precedent, and if granted 10 one nation and
withheld from another, no ground for hostility is
afforded
9TH. That the publicists divided in opinion
as to the International obligation Of surrendering
criminals it is ulatter unprovded for by the laws
Of nations The doctrine of mutual surrender,
however, is considered to be salutaty, and should
be provided for by treaty. Being unprovided for,
the practice of this nation has been against sur
rendering
so it seems there is no perfect right for our gov
eminent to demand and enforce The surrender Of
the nutineers; it may demand this, by an imper-
II
she chooses, and in case of refusal there is no
ground for prr.
The writer next comes to questions peculiar to
the Creole case and after asserting that no one
can deny gross want of courtesy OH the part of
die British authorities declares
LIST. The right of Great Britain to make slaves
ip8o Eacto freemen The moment they come within
her jurisdiction hut
ID That Great Britain has no right to make
their laws extra TERRITORIAL and destroy the proper
~ rights of others THAT is, she can't make laws
for the United States.
" Ii is not sufficient, therefore, for Britain, in
such case as this, to say that because slaves are
not property with them, they shall never be re-
garded property in those whose laws have
made them properly. Britain, indeed may free
ions-nnd if found there as mere UoiunieerS, no
claim would arise for indemnify but if there, in
any degree in invitltm Il claim to full indemnlfca.
ton necessarily arises"
This doctrine is regarded as conceded by Great
Britain. 1t was conceded in Somersets case; and
even during the last war, Great Britain paid for
slaves taken, just as she would pay for goods and
chntteIs. On this ground, should it turn out thai,
L. c,t,. : Al.
ton Of the slaves were set free by the interior
ence OF the British authorities a, Nassau-indem-
nifty is clearly due, and no doubt is expressed but
that Britain will concede it.
Finally-admitling to the fuIles, extent the
right of Great Britain to adopt universal enamel.
patton as her policy, the writer claims only that
she must not step ont OF her own dominions aud
interfere in ours. She has no right TO interfere at all
with us and should she attempt TO do it, as to
slavery or any thing ese-shoud she insist upon
that doctrine of the right of search, which we
resisted in the last war should she ever again
impress our seamen, or now, under the garb OF
uisitaiiOn, exercise the right of search for the
maintenance of her anti-slavery policy should
she venture one step beyond the matter in Hmint
of merely ascertanng the national identity OF the
vessel when upon the slave oast,-all such, ant
numerous other causes, would not fail to rouse the
patriotic indignation of every true American and
then let ,Oar come, and let the sword never be
sheahed until such wild prelensions are who'll,
abjured by them"
The writer closes with high praise of MIR. Web
ster's despotch, as ga manly, energetic and sound
ly diplomatic letter."
We have thus given, as well as our limits woul,
permit, an outline of the article, reputed TO b.
Mr. Legare's According to this, the Creole cas-
presents ground TO complain of lack OF courtesy
not of violated rights. 1t presents ground to as
indemnity, but that only so far as portion O
the slaves were induced to leave the Creole by tn
BRUSH authorities We suppose that no one ca
think of claiming indemnify for those who wer
taken ashore aud imprisoned, by request of Oh
consul lfany body must pay for those, it shout
be the consul himself or our government, who's
agent he was This case in itself presents II
ground for war cause for war; arising out
slavery can only occur when Britain steps out {
her own jurisdiction and encroaches upon ours
and then, the war must be, if there be war at al
not for slavery, but to maintain inviolabe I'll
rights Of the nation against foreign interference
Does this coincide with Mr.. Webster's de-
patch? 1t certainly does not coincide with the /,
teypretaions put upon that document by the N.
American but we suspect now, as we have from
the first, that the Secretary of State by no NEAR
holds some of The opinions attributed to him. l.,
the reader compare the despatch with the view
above expressed, and satisfy himself as to tn
congfuily or consistency of the TWO articles.
reference to the despatch, the Madsonian of r,
cent date says
The case of the Creole, ms presented in pape
and proofs now before Congress, is this An A
mercan vessel, having slaves on board was pas
sing from one port of the United States to anotl
en- In the course of the voyage, the slaves nut
nied rose upon the master and crew, killed on
man, rar away with the vessel, and carried her il