Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1864-06-09

be said that the Gag which shisds than 4 not merely the
ensign OF foreign nation but rather the banner Of human
ty and civilization under whose ample folds all those
be received who pursued because they enemies
rather than because they criminals We are empow
cred therefore and we ought to give asylum board
vesselsof war in the United States to political refugees
The limitation Of asyl1 lies in the offence AsyLum ought
nor to serUe TO gUe impIniy TO those gully of ordinary
crimes that would Do TO enc urage crime and civilized
nation may do that But may be said that is easy
for the commander OF ship Of to know whether the
man who presents himself board askiog for Asylum
or not guilty OF ordinary crimes 10 such the
mander should require his word Of honor that he has not
committed such offences. But should he give that and
afterwards turn out that he has lied there could be diff
noulty In handing over to the authorities who to
former offences had added that of the abuse OF good faith
10 being wanting to bis parole And the Gapernment Of
bdshngton oshes TO acquire perfect and posiiDe right
oms ahgery 10 them Of those guilty IF ordinary crimes
aoil be enabled to do so by If treaty of sztrado
to ne conclusion Of Uhich the Spanish Government ,ooud
not oppose itself as has not refused conclude such ,Oh
| other States"
1t will thus be seen that the Spanish Govern
ment sustained the proceedings of the commander
OF the Blasco de Garay, who declined even to give
the names of the passengers whom he had taken in
his ship. Our Government was simply informed
that if it desired to reclaim ordinary criminals it
could acquire "a perfect and positive right to do
SO by concluding an extradition treaty, and that
in the absence of such treaty it would give no
heed to our reclamations
1t remains for US, at the close of these histori-
cal citations, to sum up the logical conclu-
slons suggested by the principles and precedents
thus passed in review
From the history we have given it appears that
while the obligation of nations not to grant asylum
to criminals, but to deliver them up for trial. re-
ceves the general assent of civilized nations one
subject to many limitations and notifications 1t
is duty of "imperfect obligation" SO called like
those interviewer with the private life of individ-
uals, and the neglect of which destroys the repua-
ton of the man without rendering him amenable
for violating the law. 1t is duty resting upon
the conscience of the nation, to be discharged un-
der such circumstances in such cases, and in such
manner as in the judgment Of the nation, expressed
through the constituted authorities, may best
adapted to subscrve the cause of virtue and the
interests Of humanity.
In some political systems the monarch is the
authority who at once determines the question and
executes the judgment; but in those countries
where the principles of constitutional government
obain-in other words, where the rights of the
person are recognised-the maxims of law limit
the otherwise absolute power of the Executive
authority, and in performing their obligations to
the human race, the Legislature, in such countries,
is careful not to overlook their obligations to the in
dividual. Thus in Great Britain, as we have seen,
while the sovereign may make treaties, he cannot
fulfil a treaty binding him to surrender fugitive
criminals without the express sanction Of that part
ho IL &. Il r,.l IL
guardianship of the life and liberty of the ndivd-
ual He may make war or conclude peace without
the consent Of Parliament; but without its con-
sent he cannot deprive the humblest individual of
liberty, though that individual be charged with
the deepest crimes.
In our Own political system we find the same
careful process for reaching the ends of justice.
The treaty-making power determines what offences
the nation will lend its aid to punish, and into
what hands it is willing to deliver offenders for
punishment. The tenth article of the Treaty of
Washington, concluded between the United States
and Great Britain on this subject, shows by the
catalogue of crimes it embraces that we are willing
to trust the enlightened criminal jurisprudence of
England in wider class of offences than we would
remand to some other countries whose codes are
less conformed to the humane spirit of the age,
When the treaty-making power has sscertained the
extent of the obligation of surrender and assumed
the corresponding duty, the legislative power
forward to provide for the fulflment of that duty
and in SO doing Congress has thought proper to
omit none of those safeguards which have been
found essential to protect the accused against base
les, charges, and which, necessary as they are in
cases where the accused is to be tried in the jurs
diction where he is found, are doubly and trebly
necessary where the charges are put forward, not
for trial here, but the means Of obtaining pos
session of the accused and carrying him abroad
1t i, not improbable that Fictitious accusations
should be brought for the mere purpose Of pro-
curing the arrest and surrender Of q fugitive.
Hence it is that the careful provisions of the sta
tue, regulating extradition in this country, COM
NIT to the judiciary-versed as that department
already is in all the proceedings preparatory to a
tria-the duty of arresing the fugitive and Of as
certaining whether in facta crime has been commit
ted, and whether there is sufficient evidence to
hold the accused for trial When these questions
have been settled by the judiciary, and not till
then, does the nation consent to deny the right