{"character_count": 3443, "word_count": 617, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9704999923706055], "ccnet_perplexity": [672.2000122070312], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
THE McLEoD DEcIsIos.-.Tbe mail to-day brought papers containing the opinions aud decision of the Supreme Court, m the case of Mcleod.

 The prisoner contended for discharge from cus- tody, on the ground that the offence with which he is charged, public act performed in obedience to orders from officers appointed by the Britsh Govern ,nan.- and thai the art had since been adopted by that government as its own act.

 The Court decided against the discharge of the prisoner without trial The opinion iof the Court was delivered by Justice Cowen. It fills nearly eight columns in the American. The concluding para graphs are as follows: a sls

 When Grand Jury have charged that man has committed murder in the state, can imagine case, whether the charge relate to the time of open public war or peace, in which he can claim exemption from trial. If he show that he in truth acting soldier in tune of public war, the jury will acquit him. The judge will direct them to obey the law of nations, which is undoubtedly part of the common law So, if the accused acting in defence against in dividual invader of his country But above all things it is important in the latter for the jury to in- qure whether his allegation of defence be not false colorable. #.i.I5t HHs q

 They cannot allow as an act of defence, the wilul pursuing even of such enemy, though dictated by sovereign authority, into country at peace with the sovereign of the accused seeking that enemy and taking his lile Such indeed, can be nothing but an act of vengeance. It can be nothing but violation of territory violation of the municipal law the faith of treaties, and the law of nations.

 The government of the accused may approve, dip- lomacy may goze, but Jury can only inquire wheth- CT he was party the deed, any of illegal violence which he knew would probably endanger hu- man life. If fsatisfed that he not, sincere ly hope they may be, upon the evidence in the case before us, they will then have the pleasant duty to nerform oi Drouo,incng him not guilty But wlatey- CT may be their conclusion, feel the utmost conf dence that the prisoner, though foreigner, will have no just cause complain that he has suffered wrong at the hands ofan American jury. : lna

 At our hands the prisoner had right to require an answer upon the facts presented by his papers, wheh CT m law he can properly be holdento trial. We have had no declaration but examine and pronounce upon the legal character of those facts, order to satisfy ourselves of the bearing they might have on the novel and important question submitted. That examination has led to the conclusion that we have no power to discharge the prisoner.

 He must thsrefore, be remanded, to t. ke his trial in the ordinary forms of law. tt

 The effect of this decision (says the Journal of Commerce) will be to cause the prisoner to be tried on the indictment, by Jury, unless the case in its present form should be appealed the Court of Errors, [the State Senate, as have understood it would be, in the event of decision like the present by the Supreme Court of New York; and, should the Court of Errors affirm the present decision, that then the case would be carried up to the Supreme Court ohe United States sNi

 It must be understood that the only question before the Supreme Court was whether the prisoner should, UT should not, be discharged without trial They de- cded that he ought not to be so discharged. fA