CASE OF M'LEOD.

261

raign him, and on public grounds to refuse to plead to the indictment under which he was chargedresting his defence in the hands of his country, that watched with eager and jealous eye every proceeding taken against him. But the entire was a cheat upon the world-a wretched piece of American State jugglery, to which M'Leod under an apprehension of his personal safety-the possible sacrifice of his life, had ingloriously lent himself; as the means to more easily extricate his accusers from the dilemma, into which their inordinate vanity and self-love had betrayed them--the difficulties which their hardihood and folly had well nigh brought upon the country.

Still, does this end the prospect of future controversy with the United States, or determine the principles of international law for which Great Britain contends? By no means, it rather adds to the mutual embarrassment of our position and the difficulties that the near proximity of the Canadas, the turbulent and unrestrained character of the American population, with their known efforts to grow up dissensions between our Canadian fellow subjects and the authority of the law under which they are governed, will no doubt at some near day occasion; while the farce played off at Utica will be made to serve as a precedent in all such matters, requiring the same legal interposition, and very possibly in cases, where the difficulties of a mere identification of an individual, or a misapprehension as to his conduct, may not present the same facilities of escape.

It is certainly true, that no power exists in the executive administration of the United States, or of the other States, as with the Crown of England, to cause to be entered a noli prosequi for the purpose of staying proceedings in criminal prosecutions, and that whatever may be the desire of the executive in this respect, it is restrained in its ability to adopt this practice by the restrictions to which it is subject under the constitution. But an appeal from the final decision or judgment of a State Court, in a case as that of M'Leod's, is impliedly declared to exist by President Tyler, who succeeded General Harrison in the administration,* and who, in his annual message in opening the Congressional Session of 1841, states

"Yet there (in Great Britain) no more than in America can the chief executive power rescue a prisoner from custody, without an order from the proper tribunal directing his discharge-the precise stage of the proceedings at which such orders may be made, is a matter of municipal regulation exclusively, and not to be complained of by any other government. In cases of this kind, a Government becomes politi

*This venerable man was raised to the Presidential chair, by the suffrages of the Whig or Federal party, on the 4th of March, 1841, and on the 4th of April following departed this life, at the seat of Government in the City of Washington, being but one short month in office. He was succeeded by the Vicepresident, John Tyler of Virginia, who, according to the provisions of the Constitution, became, in consequence, President of the United States.

cally responsible only when its tribunals of last resort, are shewn to have rendered unjust and injurious judgments in matters not doubtful. To the establishment and elucidation of this principle, no nation has lent its authority more efficiently than Great Britain. Alexander M'Leod having his option either to prosecute a writ of error from the decision of the Supreme Court of New York, which had been rendered upon an application for his discharge, to the Supreme Court of the United States, or to submit his case for the decision of a jury, preferred the latter, deeming it the readiest mode of obtaining his liberation, and the result has fully sustained the wisdom of his choice."

Still do we firmly and conscientiously believe that no such appeal in point of fact exists; nor would such interference of the Federal Government be tolerated for an hour by New York, or any one of the other twenty-five States forming this confederacy, notwithstanding the language of President Tyler, in the ambiguous phraseology in which this part of his message is set out. The reply of Governor Seward of the State of New York, to an application from the Federal Government touching this matter is sufficiently clear and comprehensive, of the feeling with which it may be supposed any attempted innovation of this kind would be received by the majority of the people throughout the Republic. The following, taken from his annual message to the Senate and House of Assembly of his State, Jan. 1841, speaks his own version of the affair—

"The Government of Great Britain, soon after formally avowed the aggression, and reiterated the demand for the discharge of the accused. The late executive of the United States on this new and more formal presentation of the case, conceded that, according to the laws of nations, the prisoner could not be held responsible for his supposed participation in the aggression.

"The President further declared that he would direct the prosecution to be discontinued if it were pending in a Federal Court, and intimated to me, that if, for want of power or other cause, I should decline to enter a noli prosequi, the general Government would provide counsel for the accused, and suggest a removal into the Supreme Court at Washington, if a conviction should occur. These views were also adopted by the present chief magistrate of the United States. After due consideration, I informed the President that now as before the object seemed to me to belong to the judicial tribunals of this State, and submitted that their proceedings ought not to be embarrassed by any interposition, either of the Federal or State authorities."

The controlling influence of the Federal Government, including the authority exercised under the jurisdiction of its several Law Courts, is extremely circumscribed, and limited in its interference to those cases, to which it is immediately restricted, under the delegated powers expressly marked out by the United States' constitution; all others being reserved to the several States: the 10th article of the

CASE OF M'LEOD.

265

amendments thereto providing-"That the powers not expressly delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The appellate jurisdiction of the United States' courts, from proceedings taken in the law courts of any of the several States is strictly defined by the Act, 24th Dec. 1798, being an Act "to establish the judicial courts of the United States," and in which no authority can be found to justify, or in the remotest degree warrant an appeal from a judgment, or final decision of a State Court, in cases similar to M'Leod's, though the contrary might be inferred from that part of the message of President Tyler, that we have quoted in relation to this subject. Indeed, so perfectly satisfied did this functionary appear to be of the entire inadequacy of the law in this particular, its incompetency to carry out, under its provisions, the measure of M'Leod's ultimate liberation, in the event of his being found guilty on the trial, that he deemed it necessary to bring the subject in official form before the consideration of the country, with a view to amend the law of the United States in this respect, in the following appeal to his fellow citizens:

"I cannot fail, however, to suggest to Congress the propriety, and in some degree the necessity in making such provision by law, so far as they may constitutionally do so, for the removal at the commencement, and at the option of the party, of all such cases as may hereafter arise, and which may