The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1842-03-18


denies the surrender of criminals, except in cases
Of humanity but what such eases are, he fails 10
state.
That this subject has from very early period been
regarded a. unprovded for by The jus gentium, Is
obvious from the various treaties, which contained
express stpulations upon the subject We may
mention the treaty between England and Scotland IN
ll74 that between France and Savoy in 1878, and
between England and France in 1908. These and
similar treaties, whilst they lusr the general sense
of chiltendom TO have been thus early on the mega
tire side OF The question under review, show the
necessity of international law upon this point and
also eyince the tendency of those times towards
more harmonious intercourse between nations anu
the proprieiy Of assisting each other in the suppress
sion Of crime That the doctrine of surrender Is by
far the salutaTy admits of no que on and Is
matter OF surprise, no less than OF lament that Two oil
the most moral and intellectual among the nations
should have been among the last TO exert themselves
in establishing this wholesome provision IN the con-
yenonal code of nations. IL then, we complain OF
England in regard TO this matter, We must equally
complain Of ourselves. The law Of Belgium upon
this point is worthy of all praise for without regard
10 treaty she passed general law in 1888, authorz
charged with crimes Of almost any sort, whether maia
in Sc or maia prohibita-and made no other quail
fcalion than that of reciprocity of legislation But
this wise and truly enlightened law has nevertheless
been found fault with by the morbid stickers for what
they call humanity prefering thereby the obsolete,
and much misunderstood and greatly abused notion
of asyiums and places of refuge, than the far more
saluiary one of hunting up crime and criminals and
furnishing them according to the laws of God and
Of man. The Belgian law has hecn particularly and
roundly censured by Ferreira likewise by writer
N the Paris periodical, entitled Repue Erangere
de Legislation, &C., of December, 1888 We should,
however, have previously mentioned the equally
meritoous example of the State Of New York, which,
as early as April 1922, provided for the surrender of
ugitives in various caves, when demanded by foreign
nations. And that this was subject for mere treaty
tpulat on and was by means provided for by the
law of nations 10 have been the clear sense OF
the people of this country from earliest existence.
The conederated States at once perceived the neces
sl,y of express stipulation the subject, and
fully provided therefor by its 4h article and, in like
manner, the 18th article Of the Constitution secures
this right. showing very clearly thereby that, even
among united, well among confederated States,
|
sufficiently protective of such right.
Ia respect to foreign nations, where there has been
treaty stipulation the American doctrine has
been.emphaticay denial ofhe right and duty of sur
render lnruth il is our ayorte doctrine upon which
we have lheofz j well as prnctiseda and hence, pro-
badly has asenthe fact of he general silence Of
treaties upon that subject. There is hen consen-
| ent opinion of nations of law writers, enforcing
the affirmative Of thisqueston and were jurss much
less divided it would still have to be remembered that
the law Of nations grows not out of the opinions OF
pubcists but out Of facts and practices; for OPT
Mons, even when concurrent are but prima face
epdence of the law, and not the law Itself The OPT
MON, however, is divided one the scale of authority
greatly preponderaling in favor OF negative, esPe-
cially as an abstract question. The simple fact,
however that nation has ever strenuously asserted
it perfect right but that nations have generally
preferred 10 let it epose upon convention shows con-
clusiyey, that even the decided ,'-'"hf al "
rity favor OF surrender still could be for that
reason, asserted against nation whose opinion up
on the other side, and especially by natl IN whose
doctrine has ever been exactly the same But quite
sufficient, and more, has been said upon this point
which would not have been 50 perlinaciousy dweIt
upon, had the writer not been that doctrine,
though quite familiar to very many has been strange
| ly misunderstood by very many others. And we
| have been the more wiling to dwell upon matter
very clear 10 lawyers, because in nation like ours
Tin hich the most intensity of all ques-
tons is not only, made but carried on, by
millions Of peope) the general mind should be in
formed, and NOT only the studous few II is indeed,
true Of this nation and be predicated of other
that war is made and fought by the people large
In other countries it is the government that declares
war, and few Of their agents who fight the battles
In ours, on the contrary public sentiment declares
war, and seventeen millions wage it How impor-
tan then is that the public sentiment should be cool
dspassonate, and highly enlightened and with this
humble and wenentioned view, and by no means
for the learned has the writer ventured TO state the
above views applicable to the larger part Of the case of
the Creole But there yet remains several other as
poets of this matter, before the excited feelings Of
some may be made to sub,ide that they may calmly
view it, without sectional feelings, the one hand,
and without prejudice agans, Eng on the other
prejudice extremely natural perhaps and yet, if no
contradiction, extremely shocking
II has been further urged by some, that although
the law Of nations and even an established comfy
may not sustain our q i'm to the surrender Of these
offenders; and althou n the result would have
attended the demand for surrender of freenen vet
that the innocent part Of the slaves only not
restored, but that in violation of our flag In viola
ton of our property, and in disregard of reposed
confidence the British authorities at Nassau actirely
inerfered and dispersed the slaves among their popu-
lation; by which means they were prevented from
prosecuting their designed voyage. This is very
grave charge, in part explanaben part true, and in
part incorrect No one deny, and none should
be disposed TO question, the papable and gross want
Of courtesy, and the extremely NANTES, leaning of
the authorities there, favor of the slaves and against
the rights Of their masters and yet it is extremely
proper to look fesrlessy and cantidly at the whole