Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1845-03-07
FOREIGN RELATIONS-TH THE EXTRADI-
TION TREATY.

FOREIGN RELATIONSHIP EXTRADI-
TION TREATY.
A correspondence is published between Mr. Cal
houn and Mr.. Everett, our Minister to England,
concerning the delivering up of seven criminals
from Justice, under the Exraditon Treaty. The
case is that of seven criminals (saves) who arc al
legged to have committed robbery arson and muir
der in East Florida, and afterwards 20 have escap-
ed TO Nassau New Providence. The Court in Flor
ida, having fully investigated the facts returned
bills of Indictment against each of them for robbie.
nv and murder. The provision under the treaty is
as follows:
alt is agreed that the United States and her Brit
annnic Majesty shall, upon mutual acquisitions
to them or their ministers, officers, authorities,
respectively made, deliver up 10 justice all persons
who, being charged with murder, or assault with
intent to commit murder, piracy or arson or rob
berry, or forgery or uterdnce of forged papers, COM
United within the jurisdiction Of either shall seek
an ASYLUM, or shall be found within the territories
Of the other"
Accordingly, the Marshal of East Florida went
to Nassau with the proper acquisitions from the
British Minister at Washington, but the Chief Jus
ticc Of the Colony, acting with his associate, would
not deliver the criminals up to justice. The ground
of refusal was that the evidence was not such as
was required by the act of Parliament, that an in
dlctment per SC can never be received as evidence
| that the mere fact that an American Jury thought
the criminals guilty is not enough, but the gaounds
on which they thought them guilty are also neces-
| sary.
| "What may constitute the crime of murder in
Florida, may be very far from doing so according
to British laws, or even the laws Of the Northern
States of America. By issuing such a warrant,
then, to epprehend the parties in virtue Of these in
dictments, might be doing so on evidence which
would not justify their apprehension by the British
laws, and should thereby be proceeded against in
direct violation of the law"
Mr. Calhoun declares that the Court assumes, as
the fugitive are slaves, they are not brought within
the provision of the Treaty. The provso to the
article of agreement, which we have quoted above,
reads as follows
"Provded that this" the delivery up to justice,
/" shall only be done upon such evidence of crimi-
nality as, according to the laws of the place where
the fugitive or person so charged shall be found
f would justify his apprehension and commitment for
trial, if the crime or offence had there been com
{ mitted"
!, This in no wise restricts or changes the body Of
the agreement VIII Great Britain undertake tc
place all those Nations in which Slavery exists
t Russia, Spain, Brazil in state Of National out
lawry to herself against all true principles of inter
national law and the authority of the Bible itself
which sanctions the institution; for the principle, il
/, carried out would equally subvert the right thai
one Nation has TO hold another in subjecton.-
charged with crimes from the operation of the l0tl
t section Of the Treaty, it would never have beer
ratified.
Mr. Evorett's letter dated in November last con
; tains an interesting account of his interview witt
Lord Aberdeen on the 10th of that month Afte
stating the facts of the case, he called his Lord
ships attention to the decision of the Court Of Han
over with the view of ascertaining whether he
Maiesty's Government would sustain that decision
Lord Aberdeen replied that the Government would
only adopt the first part in which It is stated thai
an Indictment is not Of itself sufficient ground Jun
der the act of Parliament for carrying the Treaty
: into effect for giving up fugitive,
For the other part of the opinion, the Government
would not hold itself responsible. The surrender
of the lugltives was refused because the evidence
to support the application was insufficient; it woulC
2 have been refused had the application been made
in any part of the United Kingdom, and had the
9 fugtlyes been free white men, Cases might occu
in which there might be question raised as 10 tht
guilt of slave, for there is difference in the laws
of different countries as to what does constitute
murder; Her Majestys Government would no
bind itself as to action on future cases. His opln
ion was that slaves free moral agents, and as
such commit crimes, and to be regarded in tina
\ light on a demand for eXtradition.
Mr. Everett then stated that the United State.
considered the indictment or duly authenticated
, copy of one was by the Treaty, sufficient grount
e for demanding the eXtradltlon of fugitive criminals
Sand that the statute, in requiring the deposi
tons, copies Of dispositions, which the indict
ment was founded, (t it so require them which wa
matter Of some doubt,) went beyond the Treaty
, which neither party to that contract was compeen
to do"
y Mr.. Everett does not debate this last point bu
q intends to address n note to Lord Aberdeen Of
Q the subject His conclusion is, that the Births
n Government does not sustain the argumentativ
= statement by the Court as to the grouons of tn
statute provision, and as Lord Aberdeen consider
= slaves moral Agents, no special instructions hay
been transmitted TO the colonial governments i
q reference to slaves whose surrender is demandc
: as fugitive criminals.-.N Y. Tribune.