The Sun. — 1841-02-18 (London, England)

CASE OF 31R. 31'LEO.D.  We understand that official intelligence has been received from Wasliing,ton of a much more satisfactory nature than might have been supposed from the news• paper accounts received by the Acadia. There is no reason to doubt that the authorities of the State of New York will liberate Mr. M'Lcod upon bail. Indeed, they would have done so already, but Mr. Nl.Leod, being a stranger in the neighbourhood of Lockport, was unable to procure the necessary sureties. Sir J. Harvey, however, we understand, gives the guarantee of the Colonial Government to the parties undertaking to become bail for Mr. APLeod, who, it was expected, would be immediately liberated. It has been stated in previous accounts from the United States, that Mr. M'Leod had refused, or would refuse, to avail himself of the opportunity of being liberated on bail. There is, we believe, no foundation for this statement. On the contrary, he was known to be anxious to return to Canada, and was somewhat apprehensive that his trial might have been postponed till next year.  The liberation of Mr. M‘Lcod will remove the more immediate cause of the apprehension which has existed in this country since the fact of his arrest became known. For, although he can prove to a demonstration that he was not present at the destruction of the Caroline, even a defence so conclusive might not have protected him from a jury partaking of the general excitement that prevails upon the subject-. The American Government will, in the meantime, have received the remonstrances of the British Government, and will, we trust, see the injustice of allowing a case of this kind to be taken out of its own hands, and transferred to the jurisdiction of a local tribunal. Look at the first and necessary effect of such a course. At present the affair of the Caroline is a subject of negotiation between the two Governments. This tribunal has been selected by the American Government itself. Suppose, then, that Mr. M'Leod is brought to trial by the Government of ona of the States, ar.d that upon the merits of the case he is either acquitted or found guilty. How can the general Government pretend to negotiate upon a question already judged by one of the States, whose delegated authority that general Government administers? If I\l'Le4cl be acquitted upon the merits, it is a legal decision of the State of New York that the destruction of the Caroline was justifiable. Would the Government of Washington feel itself stopped by this decision from entertaining the question further ? No. Their doctrine is, that the British Uovernment is accountable to the general Government of the States, and for the same act the servants of the British Government are accountable to the particular State in which the act may have been committed.  By referring to the British Government for explanation, the American Government recognised the case of the Caroline as one of those provided for by its own constitution as a subject for national negotiation. If a jury, in the State in which the question may arise, is to conclude the negotiation upon the part of the Americans, the Queen of England should take into consideration the propriety of accrediting an Ambassador to each of the several States.  Let us suppose, again, that Mr. INPLeod bad been brought to trial, found guilty, and hanged, in the summary way that Lord Stanley so very feelingly apprehended ; that after the lapse of some time it was proved to the satisfaction of the Central Government that Mr. M'Leod was not even present at the destruction of the Caroline, that the witnesses had mistaken him for a brother, or that the cvidence collected by the British agents and laid before the American Executive during the negotiation was a satisfactory defence of the destructio❑ of the Caroline ; with whom should the Government of England account for the murder of a British subject ? The State of New York? Or is the whole Union to be dragged in as abettors of its wrong doing ?  The consequences of transferring a question clearly international in its character, from the authority pointed out by the American constitution as the agent of all international questions, to a local tribunal, not the most likely, we fear, to be impartial judges, arc not merely inconvenient, but must prove in time fatal to the existence of the federation. In the present case we trust that reflection will convince the American Government, not only of its impolicy, but of its deep injustice.— Chronicle.