|
|
cording to that law, so far as to make the States sovereign
in that respect. Your committee have examined this part
of the subject very minutely, but have not been able to
concur with the Governor of New York in his conclusions,
or to discover the force of the argument used to establish
the position.
Writers on national law have differed in opinion on this
subject. Grotius Puffendorff, Hernecrius, Vattel, Bur-
lamqui, Martens, Lord Coke, Beccaria, and others, have
given the world their labors. They all disagree, more or
less, as to the particular cases in which the demand may be
made, and some deny the right altogether, except as found-
ed in national courtesy. The adjudications in this country
have uniformly acknowledged the right, with a single ex-
ception, as far as your committee have discovered; and
those in New York have admitted it. The framers of the
constitution of course knew the difficulties that the question
presented, and winch might arise under any attempt to
exercise the power. They therefore had sufficient motives
for making it part of that instrument, and in thus attempting
to remove the difficulties, we must impute to them the in-
tention of placing the constitution above the law of notions,
and of rendering certain beyond dispute, that in reference
to which an eminent jurist said, "there were great names
on both sides. " The States, by the constitution, became
sovereign, as to their local criminal jurisprudence. To this
extent, they were recognized as free and equal communities,
independent of the general government and of each other.
As sovereign they possessed all the rights of nations, under
the law of nations, except as prohibited by the constitution.
The convention knew this — they were slow to introduce
provisions that they thought unnecessary or merely exple-
tive. Their proceedings shew that they rejected many
propositions because it was imagined that the end proposed
could be attained without them. They had an object for
every clause inserted. They designed to leave nothing un-
certain, but to make all plain. If they had desired to leave
the States to the law of nations, they would have done so,
by restricting the right of demand and surrender to that
code, in express terms. The object of the constitution, as
declared by the preamble, was "to form a more perfect
union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, &c. "
The construction now put on one of its most important
provisions, tends to destroy the union, prevent justice and
produce domestic strife.
|
|
|
