Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1843-05-05

rare confined To a limited locality Hence the much
greater danger OF law wlicl! introduces and
dangerous principle INTO systes 10 act silently,
fatally until the power oil the Stale Judiciary over
crimes committed within the exclusive and undispu.
ted Jurisdiction O! Z Stale shall lie swept away and
carried into the greedy vortex OF Federal powers.
Until quite recently the extent of the criminal jurs-
cicon oil Tie Federal Courts has not been matter of
controversy Offences committed against the laws vi
the u. S, against treaties with foreign nations, aud
crimes committed upon tie high without the urs
dicon of any State, and in places within the Sta;es,
The exclusive jurisdiction which has been
Gerec 10 the w. s, such arseuls, dDr yards, forts
and the Ike, and in Tie territories and District OF CO.
'urnba, we're, for half century supposed 10 comprise
the whole amount of Federal criminal ursdcli on with
the single exception Of criminal TO which
ambassadors, other foreign and consuls might
be 4 party
The first attempt, believed To extend this iuris
dicton Of the Federal Judiciary so as to interfere viii,
the internal police OF State, the effort made by
the Supreme Court OF the L. :. 10 draw TO ITSELF
criminal proceedings depending in State court on
the ground that the prosecution had arisen under one
Of the compacts between the U. S. and band of In
dams within The limits of the State of Georgia The
State protested against the jurisdiction disobeyed the
mandate, and sustained its own sovereignty until the
controversy was adjusted to the satisfaction OF the
State.
serious stride towards subjecng the jurisdiction OF the
State courts, crimes committed within the Stso
and against ITS laws TO the power and control Of the
Federal Judges. The burning Of the steamboa, Caro-.
line and the murder OF Duree by British armed force
and the subsequent. and trial Of Mcleod as ono
of the party concerned The murder gave rise to this
law. Although Mcleod acquitted, on The ground
that 1t did not satisfactorily appear that he present
when the murder was committed, yet it was held By
The Supreme Court Of this State that the fact Of his
acting under the orders o his Government in attack
ing The Caroline, would not, under the circumstances
Of the case him from trial for murder in the
State Court.
After the arrest of Mcleod the British Government
demanded his release itself then for the first time
ing that the invasion and attack was made under ills
authority and with its approbaon, and claiming that it,
and not the individual actors, responsible for all
consequences. The late lamented Mr.. Forsyth, then
Secretary Of State under President Van Buren,, re-.
piled to his demand, that the offence was committed
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Of New
York; against its aws subectng the offenders to trial
before It's courts and that the Federal Governments
had constitutional authority to interfere In the
matter much less 10 discharge the prisoner without
trial.
This reply from that administration closed the in
tercourse between the two Governments upon The sub
lect of McLeod's arrest. until the present admnstra-
ton came into power when the same demand is un-
derstood 10 have been repeated in mperous
tone, aud TO have met very different reception from
Cur Government IL IS true, the Federal authorities
did not attempt 10 interfere with the person Of the pri.
soner arrest the proceedings of tie State Conts
before trial but the highest iaw officer of that Co
vernment, the Attorney General Of the United States,
patched TO the OF action, with instructions
sec that able counsel were employed for the pri.
soner TO watch the proceedings OF the trial with the Ut
most vigilance and legal acumen, and TO prepare for
the removal OF the into the Supreme Court of the
United States, by writ Of error in Of conviction
Con!empor with these proceedings, intima
tion amounting almost if altogether the express
sion of an opinion, that II the were pending in
the Federal Courts, the President wond order n0is
pr0ssgui to be entered, and thus discharge cLeod
without trial, cmanated from the head of the State
department, the diplomatic agent OF cur Government
the matter. Following all this, recommendation
from the President of the T. s, in Of his messages
Congress- of the passage Of law i'll substance like
that now under consideration
This brings brief consideration Of the law il.
SELF and il will he made Ineligible by applying
lis provisions 10 the of Leod the facts of that
case and The law is. NJ .eod was subject Of
foreign State "and domiced therein, and was ar
rested within the United States, upon process issued
oul of Of the State Of New York. upon charge
of murder committed within the exclusive jurisdiction
oil that STATE, and therefore only punishable in and by
lis courts lie claimed That the persons who committed
the acts complained of were soldiers Of the foreign
State of which he was subject; that they acted IN
obedience 10 The orders of suP erior officer, whose
10 wn orders they were bound to obey; that the otders
Of the officer in that had been sanctioned by his
Government and that, therefore, the individuals who
performed the acts and took the life OF the unarmed and
unoi!rnd,ng citizens, II the act was crime, were not
responsible for II, but the redress must be sought from
their Government by whose authority and under
whose orders they had acted. II this law had been
existence AT the Tine it would have been the duty Of
any jusce oil the Supreme Court Of the United States
o. OF the District Judge of the United States for the
District within which he imprisoned, upon the ap
pcaon of NJ Leod, To have granted writ OF habtns
corpus to bring the person before him. and 10 have di
rec'ed notice, in such form and Tor such time he
in his discretion should have chosen TO dictate, to be
served upon the Attorney General ol the State, up
the District Attorney whose duty was TO prosecute
The crime. Upon the return Of the writ of habeas
pus and the proof being made of the OF the
notice it would have been the further duty Of The
Judge hear the cause; and, il the order from the
periur officer 10 the persons who performed the acts the
sanction of that order by the Government under whose
commission and authority the officer acted should ha
been proved, and that the Government, IN giving its
sonction claimed to act in conformity to the law OF
nations, or 10 the exact language of the act "un
der color ereoi then it would have been the duty OF
the Judge "for,hwiih' 10 discharge the prisoner.
In this aspect Of the case, The consequences TO fol-
low such |. gsla,on need but be glanced at 10 show
lis alarming tendencies in commercial country. 1t s
not the aud Try The crime the Federal
Conrts that the power to gran, the habcns corpus ~
given 10 the Judges OF those Courts. II Is merely TO
bring UP the CRIMINAL 10 be discharged without trial
The murder Of Durfec Schlosser, offence
against any law Of the United States. No Court Of
the United States could Try The crime, punish The
offender The statutes or this State constituted that
killing, murder, and the Courts of the State alons
could Try ard punish the crime. Congress has not The
Constitutional power 10 confer upon the Federal Courts
Jurisdiction such offence, for trial and punish
ment, to pronounce the taking Of human life under
any circumstances, within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the State, murder 1t neither give to the Fe
deral Judge the power to sentence, the Federal Mar
shall the power TO execute, the Federal President
the power To pardon such offence, go committed.
The third and eighth sections of the act of Congress Of
the Both of April, 1870, define the crime Of murder
under the laws of the United States the first upon the
land, and The second upon The high Under the
former the crime must be committed "wilhin any fort.
arsenal dockyard magazine or in any other place or
district of country, under the sole and exclusive uris.
dicon OF the United States-and under The latter, it
must be committed "npon The high seas, in any
river haven, basin, bay, cut Of the jurisdiction Of
any particular state" And yet the new law under
consideration anthofars 'he Federal Judge, by his
Of hateas eoUs, to arrest The proceedings Of the
Courts Of c State upon charge of murder committed
within its limits and under its exclusive jurisdiction
to take out of their hands the prisoner whom he can.
try; TO discharge, without bail hindrance the
prisoner whom he cannot sentence If hs were To