The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-10-06

prevailing, which is only little less abhorrent to
rest o. justice Snch construction would a. once
con roEett Mr. Webs'er's rule for Interpreting
estes by comparison Of the priyiiegsseDj 'yed by
the natives With those clsimed By foreigners and
besides, Us the ecclesiastical courts wece AZ that
TINE not only entirely independent Of, but 10 most
RESPECTS superior to- tie government itself u 's mol
rational 10 suppose that tbe latter would have more
willingly iufrlnged upon the prerogstives Of the
church than Dpou is oFn. The church might. snd
10 doubt would, have disputed the rigtt Of the
poverDntnt 10 infrg e It's jurisdiction By maklog
81 n concession as that cont aiued III the ith
article If he treaty with tbe United States
From he foregoing remarks the following deduo-
tons mEy he made
list That The general principles Of inte irrational
law are modified and restricted by special treaties.
I'd Thai the trtaty with Spain, by making pro-
visions for tho protection OF American residens
merchants, clearly presupposes the possibility OF
such residents preserving right to that protection
and therefore modiics and restricts the general
principle and the effect of the Spanish law OF
domiclIe
Sd That the 9TH and 18th articles are those which
restrict the said general principle and law and as
the 18th article is clearly and evidently napplcable
to transient residents, 1t can be applicable only to
permanent ones Therefore IL is TO De dedueed that
these last preserve their right to protection under
it, well under the 7th article, which does not
specially except them, but on the contrary, makes,
in the opening clause provisions apparently intend
ed rather for them than for transient residents
4th That if the Spanish law of domicle be con-
ceded to destroy the right to protection under the
treaty its enforcement is clear infraction Of that
treaty, nasmuch MS it renders impossible that which
the said treaty is clearly intended to make possible,
viz the residence of American citizens preserving
right to protection under it
5th That the law Of domicilc, being an infracton
of the treaty, the effects of it cannot be admitted by
the United States ju,tiiabe plea for not fulfil
ing the stipuations thereof, with respect to an
American citizen who has been obliged to submit to
that law sr to Yelinquish his residence.
9th That the United States has the right to pro-
fnnt 0nA arfI nat. aftraIl vnd
the right to claim chat protection to the extent of
enforcing the mode Of trial stipulated for in the It'll
article.
18th That the 7th article embraces all trials, whe-
Their civil or criminal.
Sth. That Thrasher, in consequence of the modi-
featon of he general principle and law of donicle,
by the treaty, had not lost his right to the mode of
trial therein sti pulated for
9th That though, perhaps, really guilty, and
meriting the punishment awarded he was not tried
according to treaty, and that there was consequent
ly, infraction thereof, which the government of
the United States bound to protect him against,
and demand new trial.
And, lastly, that the refusal Of the government of
the United States to enforce the fuflment of the
stipuations OF the treaty, places in jeopardy the
persons and property of the Americans resident in
Spanish countries, and constitutes q concession
which other nation strong enough to resist would
make to the United States
j should be the last to desire the intervention of
our government to protect the really guilty, but
where trials conducted they are in the Span
ish domnions, there is way Of arriving Mt know
ledge Of the guilt innocence Of the accused, ex-
cept by carrying into effect that stipulation Of the
treaty which provides for the presence of his own
chosen agent at all the stages Of the proceedings
l should oe the last to desire to see an American,
guilty of abusing the hospitality he enjoys, escape
the punishment he merits, but in countries where
justice is VIGOROUSLY bariered for gold, where
criminal prosecutions constantly made the means
Of satisfying private vengeance, whore the simple
denunciatiop of the most notorious villain suees to
urIr
which he cannot for months take single step IN hts
defence and where decision is made as to his guilt
innocence until he has suffered imprison nent,
longer, perhaps, than he would be liable to if COZ
demned, Except, indeed, cases like Thrashers,
where there EXITS prior determination to condemn
at all hazards jim such countries say it is not
Only preferable to go to the extreme Of protecting
the guilty rather than to leave che innocent exposed,
but 1t is absolutely necessary, if it be intended that
the title of American citizen should be considered
as worth having. AMEHICUs.