FOREIGN RELATloS-THE EzTRADI
{"newspaper_name": "New-York daily tribune.", "edition": "01", "page": "p2", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 5291, "word_count": 895, "ccnet_language_score": [0.954200029373169], "ccnet_perplexity": [1516.300048828125], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
co-re=,ondeuce Is published otl"een IL.
c,a,hor, and Mr. Everett, our Minister TO England,
oa,ce-n;nr the delivering up Of seven criminals
f,oo, ;u.,;ce. under the Extredltion Treaty. The
case * tba, of seven criminals (slaves) who are a.
leged TO have commmit;ed robbery, arson and nur-
der in East Florida andf afterwards to have ESCAPED
to Nassau, New Providence. The Court, IN Flor
ida, having fully investigated the facts, returned
bills OF Indictment against each OF them for rob-
berry and murder The provision under the treaty
is as follows:


"ti. agreed that the United States and her Britannia
Msjes:y shall, upon mutual acquisitions by them Or isE
ministers, officers. authorities respectively made de-
live. up justice all persons who being charged win
murder, assault; with intent 10 commit murder or PFse'
or arson. robbery forgery uerance OF forged pa
per committed within the jurisdiction O. either, shA-!
seek an asylum shall be found within the territories OF
the other


Accordingly, the Marshal of East Florida went to
Nassau with the proper acquisitions from the Bnt-
ish Minister at Washington, but the Chief Justice
OF the Colony, acting with his associate, woni1
not deliver the criminals up justice The sronna
Of refusal was that the evidence was not such as
was required BY the act Of Parliament, that an IN
dctne nj er Sc can never be received as evidence;
that the mere fac. that an American Jury thought
the criminals guilty Is not enough, on' the grounds
on which they thought them guilty are also nsces-
sary.


va, may constitute the crime of murder in Florida,


80 far from ling so according British laws, or
a,ep the laws of the Northern states OF America b i
suing such a warrant then. TO apprehend Tue parties ~
virtue Of these indictments. we might oe oohs 20 Oh go
dence which would not Justify their apprehension o 'e
British laws and should thereby be qrcceeded against III
direct violation Of The act.


Mr.. Calhoun declares that the Court assumes as
the fugi,yes are slaves they are not brought "ithln
the provision Of the Treaty. The proviso 10 the
article of agreement, which we have quoted above,
reads as follows:


Provided tla; this the delivery up 10 Justice shaii
only be done upon such evidence OF crimay as acco'
ing 20 the laws Of the place where the iu=itYe OF soi
40 charged shall be found, would Justify MS
and commitment for trial. If the crime or offence haa HeIe
been committed. ?


This in no wise restricts or changes the body OF
III. agreement. vii! Great Britain undertake 10
place all those nations in which Slavery exists,
Russia. Spain. Brazil, ia STATE OF national OUT
Iawry TO herself against all true principles OF inter-
national law and the authority ci the Bible iiseii,
which sanctions the institution Tor The prncp!e, II
carried out, would equally subvert the right that
one nation has TO hold another under subjection.
With this construction, excluding fugitive slaves
charged with crimes from the operation OF the lOih
section of the Treaty, il would never have been
ratified.


Mr.. Everetts letter dated in November last, con-
tains an interesting account oi his interview with
Lord Aberdeen on the 2Olh Of that month, Alter
stating the facts of the case, he called his Lord
ships attention 10 the decision Of the Court OF
Hanover. with the view of ascerlainIng whether
her Maiesiys Government, would sustain that de-
cision Lord Aberdeen replied that the Govern
ment would only adopt the FIRST part, IN which 1t is
stated that an Indictment is not of itself sufficient
ground (under the act of Parliament for carrying
the Treaty into eflecD for giving up fugitive


For the other part Of the opinion the Government
would not hold itself responsible The surrender
of the fnsitives was refused, because the evidence
to suppor; the application was insufficient; ltwosd
have been refused had the application been made
in any part OF the United Kingdom, and had the
fugitives been free white men. Cases might occur
in which there might be question raised as to the
gull, OF slave, for there is difference IN the laws
OF different counres, as TO what does constitute
murder; Her Majesty's Government would moi
bind itself as to action future cases. HIS opln-
ion was that slaves were moral agents, and as such
commit crimes, and TO be regarded in that light on
q demand for extradition.


Nlr Everett then stated that the United States
considered an Indictment, or duly authenticated
copy OF one, was by the Treaty, sufficient ground
for demanding the extradion of fugitive criminals.


"And that the statute, requiring the depos;ions
copies Of deposons, which the Indictment was found
cd fit require them, which matter of some doubt
beyond the Treaty which neither party TO that con-
| tract competent 10 do


Mr. Everett does not debate this last point but
intends 10 address note Lord Aberdeen on the
subject His conclusion is, that the British Gov
eminent does not sustain the argumentaiive state
menl by the court as to the grounds Of the statute
provision and as Lord Aberdeen considers slaves
moral agents. no special instructions have been
transmitted TO the colonial governments in refer
ence TO slaves whose surrender Is demanded as tu-
gitve criminals.


ELEMENTS or NATURAL rnLosoPHY, embracing The gene