The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1855-11-08

the poison and die would not the man in Ohio be guilty
OF murder under the law Of Vermont? And suppose still
further that in Indiana should stand upon the bank
Of the Ohio river in that State and by signs in any
other mode, induce slave to escape from Kentucky
would he not be guilty Of violating the law of Kentucky
None of these positions be successfully assaled
and II not the question they suggest is where these
offenders to be tried They could not be tried OF
in the States where they were for in of the
stated would they have committed the foregoing crimes
against the laws Of those States Can anything be clearer
than that they would have be brought within the urs
dicton of the States here The crimes committed to be
tried hsreP And how brought? The constitution Of the
United States and the laws passed by Congress pursuan
to it, have provided the remedy
The constitution says that "a person charged in any Star
with treason, felony, other crime who shall flee from
justice aud be found another Stale SHALL demand 81
the executive authority of the State from which he fed te
delivered up be removed 10 TIE State Aavng jurdieto,
Of he eriBe' And the of Congress of February II
l793 provides that in contemplated by this provs
on where the demand shall be made and copy of tn,
indictment affidavit made before n magistrate shall
be presented 1T shall Be The duty of the executive of the
State where the fugitive is found him be
ed and secured &C. Without these provisions in all tn
cases we have put as well as in Others which frequently
occur there would be mode of arrest trial. and offend
would easily escape.
In the case Of Mr. Mccormick he is charged in the
raj counts of the indictment-frst with eneing away
slaves second with aiding and assisting slaves escape
third with aiding another person in stealing and carrying
away slaves He pretends that he could have been
guilty of either of these Offences because he not in
Kentucky when they committed; but we have shown
that he could. What then, the cearlydeined duty
the of Indiana when he received the reuson
of the governor of kentucky He had jurisdiction to
inquire whether the facts charged constituted criminal
offence in Kentucky; that belonged to the Kentucky
Nor had he jurisdiction to hear and consider of the
defence of Mr. Mccormick that, also belonged to the
Kentucky courts Nor could he have looked beyond the
indictment to consider OF the degree of punishment to be
inflicted upon Mr. Mccormick if found guilty. The fat
with which he had do and the only fact was whether
there was an indictment? That being shown him. he had
no discretion and would not only have violated the con
stuon and act of Congress- but that good neghbohood
between the States which is the strong cement of the
Union if he had refused to deliver him up.
Mr. Mccormick seeks to condemn and bring into
tempt in tho northern States this doctrine "that persons
the State may be indicted and tried under the laws
of the State because ms no says 1T has only been recog
Missed by Missouri and Alabamasare States while i
has been denied in New York But apprehend it win
be found upon examination, that these not the only
States that have asserted this doctrine And we YER,
sure that if this doctrine denied by all the States
numerous crimes might be committed with impunty.
Whatever may be the authority upon this question: fur
nshed by the action of the several States there is h'
very highest and most unquestioned authority for the
doctrine we have stated In recently decided IN
England-the Queen Garrett % English Lar and Equ
IL Rsports- was said by Lord Chief Justice Campbell
do not proceed the ground Of the offence having
been committed beyond the jurisdiction of the criminal
courts of the country for person absent may BY The employ
nen as ape Of Of unconscious agent rend
himself amenaJle TO The law Of England when he come
within the jurisdiction of courts" And Mr. Jusc,
Parke in the same case said thought person. though
personally abroad might commit England and b
afterwards punished hereas for instance if he by third
party send poisoned food in England meaning to
kill him. he would be guilty of murder if death ensued
although he could not be amenable justice till he
personally within the jurisdiction The here put is
PRECISELY analogous to those have stated and both
these English judges fully sustain the pursued by
the governor of Indiana.
If Mr. Mccormick was properly found guilty upon
MS CnufcH uhl, anu Inc slNFeS hHooe CschPc uo aS~
sisted in producing brought into Indiana by his
consent, he is also guilty of violating the constitu
ton as well as penal law Of that State. 1fany negro
matto shall be brought into Indiana he shall
into the State and any person shall induce persuade
him remain shall do thing prevent his remova
from the State the person bringing him there pre-
venting his removal is subject to indictment and fn.
This exclusion of negroes adopted in the constitution
upon separate vote by majority of nearly hundred
thousand and the law passed pursuant to it truly
assured reflects the public sentiment Mr. Mccormick
therefore, by bringing himself he has done before the
public has chosen place himself in the attitude of having
violated the laws of two States and Of being fugitive
from both although criminal proceedings may have
been commenced against him in Indiana He is scarcely
entitled to sympathy then, precisely the same facts
listing his may exist in the of any other VIOLA
tor of the law.
We cannot of course know the precise mode of
ing by which the governor of Indiana brought his mind
the conclusion that it his duty surrender him.
but apprehend that his must have suggested
him the propry Of the he has taken AT all
occurs, very fortunately, that the English Court OF
Queens Bench has, by its ables judges recently furnish
cd have shown the cearest and fullest support
this any other respectable court would make excep
ton merely in where sapes concerned The
doctrine must apply to a crimes of whatever nature