Daily State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1865-05-13
The the Treaty
and John Brown.

The Tribune is in a fair way to become an
authority on points Of International law. A few
days since. We quoted the article Of tie W ebster
Ashburton treaty stipulating for the mutual
surrender Of persons charged with certain speci-
hed crimes, and remarked What the language OF
the treaty showed) that the rebel plotters in
Canada Of the assassination Of President Lincoln
cannot be demanded under the siipulstions o;
that article. The treaty would cover the case
Of persons committing a crime within the United
States aud taking refuge in Canada, but not the
case of persons whose acts connecting them with
the crime had not been committed within our
jurisdiction. E~
The Tribune took occasion. in a vefy windy
article. 20 cry out against this opinion as . shock
ing and monstrous perversion of public law. Is
We had given the very words Of the treaty, aud
all il contained on the subject, il behooved The
Tribune TO show that tae language could be so
interpreted az 10 include the criminals in ques
lion; but il, prudently forbore TO make the at
tempt. We now ask it to tell US its opinion as TO
the probabilities Of such a surrender in view oil
the following statements Of facts:
First. The government has not, 80 far "a yet
appears. made any demand for the surrender. Ii
il supposed the Canadian authorities bound by
the treaty to give those persons up. it would
naturally make a prompt demand for them. be-
fore they abscond and conceal themselves. The
offer Of a reward would be a friendly notice to
them to get out of the vay, if they were in any
danger OF arrest under the provisions OF the
treaty.
Second. The British government, since the
present ministry has been 10 power, has passed
upon a precisely similar case, and has decided
in . manner which gives TO the decision a very
peculiar emphasis, that il has no power to make
such a surrender. The case occurred some six
or seven years ago, Immediately after theattempt
TO assassinate the Emperor Louis Napoleon in
Paris. The emperor charged that the plot for
the assassination originated IN London, and asked
the British government to surrender the conspi
rators. There was in that case as in this, an ex
tradition treaty between the countries: but it EN-
braced only crime, commit e. in the country max
ing the demand for surrender. Lord Palmerston
accordingly refused. for want OF power; but to
show his friendly feeling be Immediately brought
into parliament a bill for authorizing the govern
ment to give Up persons conspiring to commit
murder outside of her msjesty's dOminiOns
This bill the parliament refused to pass; and the
British law on this subject has since undergone
no change.
Third. After the John Brown raid, Governor
Letcher, of Virginia, made a demand Of Cover.
nor Dennison, of Ohio, for certain ~fugitives in
dlcted for murder. or as accomplices. Governor
D~ennison refused to give them up, on the ground
as we recollect the case, that there was no proof
that the persons charged were in Virginia at the
time. Attorney general Woleott, whose advice
Governor Dennison took was a brother in law OF
Secretary Stanton. and has been his assistant sec
rotary. and Governor Dennison is now postmaster
general. If The Tribune will neither accept the
language of the treaty. nor the precedent set in
a similar case by the present British ministry, IL
will, perhaps, think some Difference is due to the
analogies furnished by this last named case draw
from our domestic history.--N. Y. World.