Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1845-03-07

American J ny thought the criminals guilty. We
onaht I" know the grounds upon which they thought
them guilty. What may constitute the crime OF muir
ing 10 British law, OF even the laws Of the Northern
States OF America. BY issuing n warrant, then, 10
npprehend the parties, in virtue Of these indictments,
We might be doing so on evidence which would not
ln,s'ii,y, their apprehension by the Bri ish. laws, AID
should thereby be preceded against in direct viola.
ton of the act"
Mr.. Calhoun further says, that the Court
must have taken the ground tia, the fngiiives.
being slaves, did not, in consequence, con,c
within the provision of the treaty. The
treaty, i, is alleged, means all persons who
are guilty Of the offences charged /; and, fur
,l'er, that the criminality is to be- judged of
by the laws of the country where the offence
is committed. Any other agreement, it is
said, would have been manifrsily absurd
To the above article of agreement between
us and Great Britain, there is the following
proviso, which Mr.. Calhoun contends does
not in any respect change the principle he
has laid down.
"PlovideI That this" fthe delivery up to iusiicel
'''y ~ '"' 'f'' |'N' ''I'''' ~. ''.''
" as, according 10 The Laws of he place where the f-
gtive o. person so charged shall b- found, would JUS
tiiy his apprehension and commitment for trial, If the
crime or offence had there been committed"
"This,"says Mr.. Calhoun, " il. is too plain
to require proof, relates TO the evidence on
which the fugitive is to BE- given up to JUS
,icr, exclusively, without intending to re-
strict or change the body Of the agreement.
That having clearly specified who were to
be delivered up to justice, on the rrqnisii,on
of either party, il became necessary, in or.
der TO give effect to the agreement, to speci-
fy on what evidence il should be done /; and
L, do that, accordingly, is the sole object of
the proviso. II is explicitly specified that
it shall be done on such evidence of crimi-
nali'y as wonld justify hs apprehension and
commitment for trial, by the laws Of the
place where the fugitive is found, had the
crime charged been there committed ; that
is, if the crime charged be murder or rob.
berry, las in this casr,) on such evidence as
would Justify apprehension and commitment
Tor trial for murder or robbery at the place."
Mr.. Calhoun then returns to the charge,
tina, the position assumed by Grea, Britain
is from the fact that the fugilives are slaves.
Had they no, been. he feels assured they
would have been gwen up. Presenting this
distinction to have heen made, Mr.. Calhoun
concludes his despatch to our Minister as
follows:
"Tni> biings up two very grave questions. On
what principle can such n distinction be mndc =? and
is the Government ni Great Bri ain prepared 10 make
i'll | can mag ne ut one and that is. that the
form of restraint implied under The name of duinestC
servliude-,hat is. of one man holding another under
subjeciion, commanding his labor wi hout his con
seni-ls sd repu.nnni to the moral co ie. that it can
not he made lawful. although sanctioned BY The law.
of the country where II exists. but it cannot be ihn,
Great Britain, who is more re ponslble Than any 9th
er country for the extent Of that form of servitude on
this continent. and which has but 20 recently abol
ished il, will. so little benefit to herself or those liber
ated. in her own pos essions. is prepared to adopt nnt
act on snch a principle, aud thereby place, as far n.
its operation may extend, this co niry, Russia, Spain
Brazil, and all others not prepared To follow her ex.
ample, in a state of national ouilawry in reference IL
herself, against The authority Of all ages, and Of III,
grea, cxpound.rs of international laws, and, it may b,
added, Of the Bible itself, which, as often as il is men
toned, nowhere disrouragts such servl ude, or pro
nnunces il to he rrpugnant In morals or religion. ]
cannot be that she is prepared 10 'dopt n principle
which, if carried on, IN practice. would not only b,
suhver>lve 10 the right 1T one man holding 10 sublec
ton and commanding the labor of another, wiih0u
his consents; but equally so OF one people or naiior
holding another in subsection, and commanding III
labor without IFS consent. 1t cannot he but she mus
see that the principle tends to The complete subver
sion Of nil human authorliy-nnd that II contains with
IN itself The germ Of universal anarchy; and must, i
carried oui in practice, react with destructive fury q,
her political institutions, and burst the bonds whicl
hold IN ser,itnde, under her sublcc;ion, So large a pr
lion of the human race.
But. be that as it may, It is at least certain that sh
cannot hut know that the treaty never would hav
! been ratified, had we believed TINT she would adop
the principle, or so consirue The 10Th article, as :" ex
clude from lis ope alton fugitive slaves. charged vii.
r the cilme of mInder, rohbefy y, or any oihcr of ihns
Y enumerated. who might eek nm asylum or he fonn
l IL her terri ores. Certain il is, that no Senator iron
the siavt holding states would have knowingly vote
v for q treaty embracing n principle which would STAN
Y such n Stigma OH Their constituents and lnsi!t"iicn'
and exclude them from almost all the advantages The
2 could hope 10 derive from II. II might be added, No
n any Senator woe for It. who regarded the honor of hi
conn ry. or the sacred obligations If The constitute al
= which makes II the duty Of The federal government
: extend equal protection 10 nj The members of the ur
ion. The suffice, indeed, was not passed over witt
e ont notice, while The treaty was before the Senai
. During The discuss on, il was objected 10 the ariirl
that il was so wOrded intentional y ms 10 exclude froI
lie operation cases of this description. l, was repli-'
= that The portion Of the article o' jecicd TO was copie
n rerbatim from Jays treaty Of 1894 mnde long heful
England had contemplated The abolition Of slavery
her Possessions, and when there could be no inieniio
q u! he kind. II was ad ed that treaty had never n
c,ived an incorporation That wonld warrant such
d con .r 'ciion. The reply quoted all apprehension
and The treaty received The vnie af n large MAJORITY
the slave holding States. Without them, i, wouI
not have been ratified.
THE REPLY.