|
|
|
pose a demand had been made by England, under that
treaty, for a person accused of forgery, can it be conten-
ded that the United States Government could have justly
refused, on the ground that the papers accompanying the
requisition, shewed that the particular act charged, did not
constitute the crime of forgery, according to our laws?
Surely not — and why? The stipulation, in its character,
shews that it was designed for the benefit of England.
She included this class of offenders, because she was a
commercial nation. The severest penalties are annexed,
because the crime strikes at her prosperity, and may affect
her standing among nations, by destroying her trade and
commerce. Hence she never pardons the offender. She
pursues him even beyond the ocean, and brings him home,
that his punishment may have its due effect. These cir-
cumstances gave an importance to that crime there, that it
did not possess here; and although we might well think that
the punishment was too severe, and not proportioned to
the offence, according to our code, yet we could not have
withheld the offender from her justice, because the demand
would have been made for her security, not for ours. If
she deemed the safely of commerce and the security of
her people's property depended upon the death of the of-
fender, we could not have gainsaid her judgment; we could
not have enquired into the truth of the charge, the justice
of the law, or the extent of the punishment.
So in the present case, our institutions are so different
from those of some of the States, as to make that criminal
here, which is not so regarded in them. They are as much
obliged to regard and respect our peculiar condition, and
to aid us in protecting; ourselves against violations of this
description of property, as the United States in the case
put, would have been to assist in vindicating the laws of
England.
The States have an interest in the question co-extensive
with the range of their criminal jurisdiction. It is not
a mere question between the North and the South about
the rights of slaveholders, or any domestic policy particu-
larly, — it affects all property. It relates to all manner of
felonies and other crimes, on the punishment of which so
much depends in maintaining the peace of society, and pre-
serving the public morals.
The Executive of New York also contends, that the
right of demand and obligation to surrender, according to
the law of nations, is not extended by the constitution of
the United States; that it merely sanctions such claims ac-
|
|
