Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1861-01-19

that which LegSlature,ln IN It's ulscreuOIs may give
it, and the constitutional obligation Of the Ezecu-
tive Of each State would be created by the caprice,
and the liberty of the citizen would be deprived,
upon tho legislation Of the others. Such con-
struction of the constitutional provision could not
DO tolerated for it would lead to infinite abuse; nor
could its obligations be enforced.
IT, then, by "other crime" it was not intended
to make the cizeus Of each State liable to rendi-
lion at the discretion of the Legislature of every
other State, and more limited and definite mean
ing is to be given to the term 'or other crime"
whore shall that limitation be found?
The provision under consideration was !nrOduc-
ed as a rule of International law between the
States. As international law it must have def
mite meonng, understood and recognized when en-
tered Into by the States. 1t must have the same
meaning in all the States. Its construction, there
fore, must be determined by the general and ac-
cepted meaniDgof the terms used a! tho time the
provision adopted.
What, then, was the received aocoptation Of the
words, treason, faloAy, o. othor crime when the
Constitution was framed?
The common law, its jury, indictment, rules Of
evidence, and definition Of felony AMI other crimes
and misdemeanors was interwoven With the GRIM
nal Jurisprudence of all tho original thirteen
States of the Union. The Constitution itself
more than once, expressly, Cart. VII, amend
meuts) and every whore By necessary implication,
recogni7a this system as q part of the national
jurisprudence; and in tho Federal tribunals it is
constantly appealed to- not as a source Of juris-
dcton, but as the means by which Jurisdiction,
when given, is to be exercised, and as furnishing
the rules by which the grants of power, Of the
Constitution are to be interpreted and applied.
The very phrases treason felony, and other
crime" in the provision now in question come to
us from that source, and without reference to it,
one at least Of these phrases is utterly unintelli
gible. These considerations are conclusive that
the Constitution at large, and especially this clause
of it, was drawn with direct reference to the sys-
tenn of the common law, as afordiDg the guide to
its exposition and administration.
That the oifenses stated in these requistiors are
unknowu to the common law is too manifest to
need remark.
Although the rule Of common law seems to be a.
safe guide in determining what are crimes within
:he meaning of the Constitution l have not been
governed by that alcne.
This provision of the Constitution as has already
been stated, is a rule OF international law between
States. Its construction may, therefore, bo very
properly determined by internatit nal law. The
extraditOn Of criminals has never been extended
to purely local ofenses, growing out of domestic
institutions, and the word "crime" would IN
doub,edly be regarded in an express compact be.
teen two States, as relating not merely to grave
offences deemed wrong by the general conscience
of the Christian world but as crimes By the laws
and usages Of all civilized nations.
If, then, the crimes referred to in the Coustitu
ton are not any acts whatever, which any State
may capriciously declare to be such, the meaning
Of the Constitution must be found in what are 9e
fined to be crimes by the common law of nations
lt is clear that neither the common, nor interna-
tional law, recognizes the acts named in these re-
QUESTIONS as Grimes" and l cannot admit do
believe any State will adult that its citizens are
subject to requsitions for any act which any
other State may declare to be crime.
Ia reaching this conclusion | have not been un-
mindful of the inconveniences to which it may
sometimes give rise. Occasionally it must doubt
less happen that offender against the local poll
cy of one State will escape punishment by seeking
refuge in another State. This fortune, however,
befalls all coterminous States, and has not been
found to entail serious mischief, to disturb the
harmony of their peaceful relations. Besides, it
is infinitely better that an offender should occa-
sionaly escape, than that State should be obig
ed to recognize and enforce the laws of another
jurisdiction inconsistent with her own policy, and
contrary to the general usages of mankind Every
rule must be more less imperfect, but the one
which has seemed to me to be cOn!emp plated by the
Constitution ITSELF is, perhaps, as faultess as any
that could be devised. 1t accords with the princ
pies of natural justice, the obligations of good
neigbborhood, and the comfy of nations, while,
at the same time, it respects the sovereignty Of the
State, and secures the citizen his just measure of
protection.
Such are the considerations that determined my
action 10 regard to the acquisitions referred to-
Had been clothed with the legal authority,
would have promptly surrendered the accused
parties. But my sense Of duty, fortified by the
long established practice Of this Department did
not permit me to treat them as maefactors for the
purposes of extradition. therefore declined to
surrender them.
The CoLoRED POPULATION OF GEoRGtA.-A bill
has passed the Georgia Legislature which provides
that every free person of color who has reached
A. n