Essex County herald. [volume] (Guildhall, Vt.) 1873-1964, 1885-09-18
Chr essex County Atrall.
ISLAND POND. SEPTEMBER Is. 1885.
TIVE BRAfNERn CASE.

f~S'NNa' N''i ht' hi'AS' PtA Ftt ." W ~
what Senator Edmuuds said in re-
Spouse to an enquiry made by cor
respondent of the Journals:
The United States is bound, said
Senator Edmunds, TO prevent its citi-
zens from kidnapping persons IN other
countries and bringing them here by
violence. Brainerd being a resident
of British colony was as much en-
titled to the protection of the laws and
government of Great Britain rs though
he was n subject. lie is not in either
sense fugitive from Justice in Canada,
and does not even stand charged with
any crime for which eXtradition is
proved, and if he did he could not be
lawfully taken by such means, and as
II consequence his violent and Unlaw-
full eXtradition would constitute just
cause of complaint by the British Gov
eminent. If Brainerd was illegally
seized or brought over the border by
force than it is species of violence
that neither the United States nor
Great Britain can tolerate. 1t makes
no difference whether the act in ques-
tion was committed by private detect
ives or by officers of the law. In either
case the kidnappers could, by the OK
tradition treaty, be demanded by
Great Britain and our Government
would be obliged to surrender them to
the Canadian authorities for violation
of their laws. In the Brainerd case
suppose it would be the duty of the
Government, on application being
made to Judge of the United States
Court, the facts being proven as stated,
TO release Brainerd from the custody
of the kidnappers and return him to
the Canadian border. OF course, if it
should appear that Brainerd came
over the line of his own free will and
without any force being used it would
put different aspect on the matter.
But if he was on British soil he was
entitled to the full protection of the
laws of the land, irrespective of his
citizenship. Senator Edmunds, while
not anticipating any international
complications growing out of the case,
said that it would be dangerous and
productive of serious results to estab
lish the doctrine that citizens on one
side OF the border could make raids
over the line and seize persons or
property at their pleasure.
We understand the situation to be
in substance this. Mr.. Brainerd
was president of a bank. The great
est confidence was reposed in him.
He held funds belonging to all
classes. In many instances he was
Entrusted with the only protection
which stood between the poor man
or the widow and actual want and
suffering. He is charged with be-
trayiug that trust. Now all there is
to it is that it is claimed he betrayed
his trust and fled to Canada with his
ill-gotten gains. Of course this is
nothing to do with the legal ques-
ton as to whether his bondsmen had
a right to take him and deliver him
in court in discharge of his bail. But
it is very singular how suddenly he
is surrounded with influence and
sympathy under such circumstances.
If one of the victims had sought the
opinion of an eminent lawyer to de-
fend his or her rights, it is quite
probable that to procure an opinion
it would have been necessary to &C
company the application with some
inducement. This of course does
not imply that any man hasn't
right to give his opinion upon this
or upon any other public question
voluntarily. But under the circum-
stances it seems to us that the peo-
pie are not bound to regard such
action or opinion as conclusive. The
law was not made alone for the rich
and the influential or to protect
monied aristocracy, but as we'll to
protect the poor and weak who are
most in need of it. There are some
things which the common people,
who are not versed in law, may
have an opinion on in connection
with this case. We Of course shall
not assume to discuss the legality of
these proceedings, but we do make
bold to suggest some things that
look queer to the common mind in
this sudden outburst of sympathy.
1t is stated that Mr.. Drainerd is not
in any way fugitive from justice
in Canada. We leave that, without
comment, for the consideration of
our readers, as we'll as the assertion
that the government is bound to
prevent this man from being deliv-
cred up. No one pretends, we
suppose, that for this pretended
crime any extradition is provided.
But this interview goes still further
for we find the following language
in the article, viz;
"Regarding the advisability of
extending the scope of the present,
e&tfadltion treaty, Senator Edmunds
thought they might be well ex-
tended to cover other crimes, but
that there is some danger in includ-
ing the whole body of ordinary
crimes -