Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1861-01-18


Is aadsr cohstitutiobaI Obligation 10 remand
its citizens 10 another, for any act which
the Legislature Of any State may designate
as a crime. In this sense che word "cTime"
has no other meaning than that which
Legislature, in is discretion, may give il;
aud the constitutional obligation Of the Ex-
ecutive Of each State would be created By
the caprice, and the liberty Of tho citizen
would DO deprived, upon the legislation Of
the Others. Such reconstruction Of the con-
stitutional provision could not be tolerated,
for it would lead 10 infinite abuse; nor
could its obligations be enforced.
IT, then, by ''other crime" il was not in
tended to make citizens Of each State liza
bic to rendition at the discretion Of the
Legislature Of every other State, and more
definite meaning is to be given to the term
"or other crime" where shall that Limitation
be foundi
The provision under consideration was in-
troduced as rule Of international law Il
must have definite meaning, understood
and recognized when entered into by tho
States. It's construction, therefore, must
be determined BY the general aud accepted
meaning of the tesns used at the time the
provision was adopted.
What, then, was the received acceptation
Of the words "treason, felony, or other crime"
when the Constitution was framedi
The common law, its jury, indictment,
rules of evidence, and definition of felony
and other crimes and misdemeanors, was
interviewer with the criminal iurisprudence
Of all the original thirteen States Of the
Union. The Constitution itself, more than
once expressly, (Art. VII, amendments)
and every where by necessary implication,
recognizes this system as part Of the ma
tional jurisprudence; and in the Federal
tribunals it is constantly appealed to, not as
a source Of Jurisdiction, when given, is to be
exercised, and as furnishing the rules by
which the grants of power Of the constitu-
ton are to be Interpreted and applied. Tho
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 unintelligible. Constitution at
large, and especially this clause of it was
drawn with direct reference to the system
of tho common law, as affording the guide
to its exposition and ADMINISTRATION.
That the offenses stated in these requisi-
tions are unknown to the common law is too
manifest 10 nced remark
Although the rule of the common law
seems to be safe.guide in determining what
are crimes within the meaning Of the Con-
stitution, have not been governed by that
alone.
This provision of the Constitution, as has
already been stated, is rule ofinternation-
al law between States. Its construction
may therefore, be very properly determined
by international law. The extradition of
criminals has never been extended to pure
ly local offenses, growing out of domestic
institutions, and the word ''crime" would
undoubtedly be regarded, in our express
compact between two States, as relating not
merely to grave offenses deemed wrong by
the general conscience of the Christian
world, but as crimes by the laws and usage
of all civilized nations.
|
Constitution are not any acts whatever,
which any State may capricioualy declare to
be such, the meaning of the Constitution
must be found in what arc defined 20 be
crimes by the common law, or recognized
as such by the law of nations. 1t is clear
that neither the common nor international
law recognizes the acts named in these re-
Il 81
nor do believe any State will admit, that
its citizens are subject to acquisitions for any
act which any other State may declare to
be crime.
In reaching this conclusion I have not
been mindful Of the inconvenience to which
it may sometimes give rise. Occasionally
it must doubtless happen that an offender
against the local laws and the local policy
Of one State will escape punishment by
seeking refuge in another State. This fort
une, however, befslsa all coterminous States,
and has not been found to entail serious
mischief, or to disturb the harmony oftheir
peaceful relations. Besides, it is infinitely
better than an offender should occasionally
escape, than that State should be obliged
W ISSOSulLo duu SulOICo CuO laws VI auOtn-
er Jurisdiction inconsistent with her own
policy, and contrary to tho general usage
Of mankind. Every rule must be moro or
less imperfect, but the one which has seem
ed to me to be contemplated by the Con
stitution itself, is, perhaps, as faultless as
any that could be devised. 1t accords with
the principles of natural justice, the obliga-
tions of good neighborhood, and the comfy
ofnations, while at the same time, itrespects
the sovereignty Of tho State, and secures the
citizen his just measure Of protection.
Such are the considerations that deter
mined my action in regard to the requisi-
ltions referred to. Had been clothed with
the legal authority, l would have promptly
surrendered the accused parties. But my
sense of duty, fortified by the long estab-
lished practice of this department. did not
permit me to treat them as malefacters for
the purpose of extradition. therefore de-
clined to surrender them.
l.