, 1865-04-05

Jud: nient of the CONTAMINATION
IkefuE<ds


At an early hour this morning the loebies
Of the Court House were densely crowded By
those anxious to hear the Judgment Of Mr.
Justice Smith in the case CT the St. Adams
Iiaidcrs, which was TO be given ut half.past
ten O'Clock. The courtroom doors were kept
some members Of the bar, and the press only
being admitted previously. Subsequently
the loom became packed In every quarter.
The learned counsel on both sides were IN
and the Hon. Attorney General
Car tier was also present. A few minutes
after the appointed hour,
Mr.. Justice Smith proceeded to deliver the
Judgment Of the court. In doing 50 he would
it1ly state the facts as they appeared to be
proved in the evidence brought before him.
The general facts upon which the demand
rested were these: That Benuct Young and
his associates being In the town Of st. AL
bans, in the State Of Vermont. one Of the
United States Of America, did rise upon the
people; that they attacked the banks and
the money from Them; that whilst there
Breck cltne into one OF the banks t. attend
to private business Of his own, when he Was
set upon, and 7ndcr threats of violence and
loss Of lite, they took his 41noney from him.
7 his WAS called robbery, and it WAS contend
Of the State Of Vermont that the otfense
falls within the meaning Of the Ashburtou
Treaty, and that, therefore,, the prisoners
must be surrendered for trial. The prison.
ers, IN the contrary, said that this act Of rob-
bi1g the banks was not Of itself an act Of
robbery; that the amino jurdndi WAS want
ing; that it was mere incident in the
sion Of that raid they we're authorized By
their government; and that the otfeuse,
Therefore, ceased to fall within the category
Of otfenses provided for in the Ashburton
Treaty. Considering these facts in 3 general
way, it was quite evident that the points Of
to very few. On the one hand We had the de-
mand for the surrender Of the prisoners for
an ofense under The the municipal law on
the other hand the prisoners saying that they
did not commit the offense charged; th1t
their act Vas justified BY the laws Of var,
and WAS authorized by the Government. The
ssss sse ae w9na ID tR to yts but M IT
propositions in general way There could
be no doubt whatever that II the case stood
as it WAS prest nted by the examination Of q
few Witnesses, it would fall within the mu-
nicipal law Of VermontS The facts which
constitute q robbery were clear. So far as
they we're concerned, unaccompanied by other
facts, they would leaTe him very little to
do. 1t would be his duty as committing
magistrate to SAY there had been proved
sufficient case here und5r the statute to jnsti-
fy him in committing the prisoners for ex-
tradition: there were sufficient facts he.e for
him to eay that ii the ofense had been COM
nltted IN this country he could have COM
mitted Them for trial. But tue difficulty
arose from the facts that we're stated by the
prisoners; and the first question was whether
O. not lie lad done right in admitting evl-
dtnce Of these iacts before the Court. It was
pretended that he had no such right; that
they were 1acas Tor jury to decide upon in
the country where The of1enee WIS CON-
Mitted. He was Of a different opinion. He
Ind admitted evidence, not, indeed, for the
defense, because there Was, properly speak,
ing, no trial +; but just as evidence would be
rtceiycd By Coroner at an Inquest, from
any persons, who knowing anything abont
the matter, could testify as to what took
place,
lie then discussed, In confused manner.
The decisions bearing upon tue right to re-
ceiye in evidence the testimony for the de-
Gnse, to wit: the commissions Of the accused
as rebel officers. This portion Of his deci-
sicn, as reported, is so obscure as to convey
no clear impression, either to the legal Or the
unprotcssional mind, unless 1t be that the
weight Of authority was against the decision.
Having decided in fayor Of hearing the eyi-
dencc TOR the defense, which amounts to try
ing the case, he continues:
The Government which existed in coun-
try for the TING being Was Government de
faeto, entitled to tue privileges Of a recos~
nized Government. Whether the South, then,
trtops; they could do everything that an In
dependent Government could do. and If they
did any thing wrong they were entitled to be
treated sccurdins to the laws Of nations. No
o1ler means Of punishment existed except
the sword. #, mdetd thu prisoners wer: act
ing without any authority whatevcr, but were
aching for one of.thc bellfgerents against the
pirates, nlurdere1ssand rpbbersif caught in
The tnenly's territory. That WAS the only
exception hr could find. Acting on this,
General Dix had said shoot them down In the
streets OF St. A1bans. Was it to be supposed
that lie would have given such an order
had this been an act Of simple robbery
Was such an order ever glren except
in the case OF those engaged IN
military npcrat;ons. The order showed what
the ideas Of the American Government were.
II they wished to treat the prisoners as ordl-
nary criminals they would never have given
such IN o1der- So far as the recognition Of
their character went there could be nothing
mistake on the part of the officer who gave
the order, but the superior authorities had
never d1Eavowed II. From the very COM
Of the civil var 3lr. Seward had
denied the principle Of the law operations In
to England and the United States,
and every one knew what claims were to be
made in consequence. Although England
and France r..cognized the South as bclliger-
tnts, the States would not recognize them,
but said they would hold these countries to
Their reading Of the Law Of nations, and all
the damages done during this war would be
laid at the door Of those who had contrcvened
The law rs In down by the American Gov.
fhG 1r1$ x.tT f,n1+ fry$
was It the doctrine to be acted on in an Eng
lish Court Of Justice9 To ay In The face Of
the proclamation Of the Queen and furnish
a precedent such as that would be WIS some-
thing he could not bring himself to do! he
then proceeded to consider the point as to
He cited from Haileck with
reter.nce to parttzan aad guerilla warfare.
showing that while thug were not authorized
nor recognized by the Government In whose
Interest thcy acted, their acts we're Illegal
but that If they we're recognized by the State,
the Slntc was to be held responsible Tor their
acts. II not recognized By the State their
was robbery, and If they killed It was mur-
der. Tie government that captured them
might hang them. But II snch persons
should seek an asylum in q neutral country,
we're they to be given upf Would the neu.
t1al be required to eide With either OF the
He c0ntenueu 1uey snQu'0
not !; it was clear principle Of the law Of na-
lions that political refugees should not be
given up. There was no authority for the ap-
plication of the principle Of ext tradition 0 po-
fitcal CYLINDERS. For violation Of common
law they should be surrendered, but not for
q violation Of national law 1t Was an absurd
that because they were criminal
In the eyes ofmunieipal law, they were also
c1jmina1 in the eye Of national
law. This would involve the question
were these men Confederate soldiers!
We're they acting under the authority
Of their government he proceeded
In this connection TO consider whether the
war Was civil war or rebellion, and conclu-
ded that il was civil war Parties notori-
ous'y engaged IN war mus: be governed By the
rules oi var. Was this rebellion? Was it
10 be supposed that people Of ten millions,
with a,' existing government complete in cy.
esy osrattmcnt. who have thrown of the au-
monty Of the government and excluded Il ON
thcir territory all laws Of the United States
could It be said that such a people were only
in rebellion: Was It not rather a civil Tar?
The United States Government con tinne tn
call 1t rebellion. but 1t was leral and ner-
feet war. There were eleven States w,th a
rect gnized government. which had been sc