|
|
This amendment itself extended its operation; for if the
word misdemeanor had been retained, it would have appli-
ed only to cases less than felony, and punishable by indict-
ment, so that a demand could not have been made in any
case, unless the act complained of were the subject of in-
dictment. Your committee believe that the words "or
other crime" remove all doubt. "A crime is an act com-
mitted or omitted in violation of public law, either forbid-
ding or commanding it. In its most general signification it
comprehends all offences; but in its limited sense it is con-
fined to felony. The term misdemeanor, includes every
offence inferior to felony, but punishable by indictment.
Offence is usually understood to mean a crime not indicta-
ble, but punishable summarily, or by a penalty. " See
Bouviers Law Dic. — Vol. 1. — 272.
Your committee are of opinion that the employment of
the words "or other crime, " in preference to "misdemean-
or, " indicates the intention of the convention, that the prin-
ciple in question should "extend to every violation of the
public law" of a State, which that State might deem of
sufficient importance to authorise a demand, if the offender
escaped to another State; the offended State being the
judge of its own laws, and of the necessity and manner of
enforcing them. Another State, in the relation of New
York to Virginia, should not examine whether the accusa-
tion be true or false; it should presume on the justice of its
neighbor, and not suffer any doubts on its part to impair
an institution so well calculated to preserve harmony and
good understanding between the States. Indeed the inqui-
ry would be contrary to the law of nations, on which the
Executive of New York relies.
These are the views entertained by your committee of
the obligations imposed by the constitution. But if the
constitution be only a recognition of the law of nations,
and was designed only to secure the application of its
principles to the States of the Union, your committee still
are of opinion that the surrender should be made. By the
authority quoted, it will appear that the rule in question
admits of a qualified application, not noticed by the Exe-
cutive of New York; and we might confidently submit the
case on that authority, as fully sustaining the claim of Vir-
ginia. When we consider the character of this Union,
and the intimate connection between the States, the deep
concern they all have in the observance of law, and regard
For the rights of property in each other, and finally in view
of the eminent importance that was attached to the institu-
|
|
|
