{"character_count": 4782, "word_count": 822, "ccnet_language_score": [0.970300018787384], "ccnet_perplexity": [782.2000122070312], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
We do not believe that Mir. Tylcr's recommenda- tion that ihe Federal courts be vested by Congress, with jurisdiction in such that of Mcleod, in order to enable the Executive to order noiie proseq and discharge tue accused without tria-wll meet with much favor with Congress in the States The extent 10 which he would carry the increase of Federal jurisdiction, is indicated by the he would

 have made of such power in tho case selected and we believe that large majority of the peops and the States, considered it point of honor and of duty, that Mcleod should be tried. The State of New York in every department of her soyernment-lcgis- latiye, executive and judiciary-insisted upon the exclusive right to try criminals indicted for felony committed within her boundaries; and her highest

 legal tribunals pronounced the exercise of that right consistent with the law of nations, well as part of her inalicnabe jurisdiction. In that judgement they were sustained by the common voice of the com- try; and few will share in Mir. Tyers regrets that he had not the power to take Mcleod from the cus- tody of New York, and set him free by executive action, through cgal formality indeed, but still by absolute executive direction, witho 1t trial, and in compliance with the demand of foreign power.- That use of the power would have shocked the public  might be so used, and is asked that it may be 80 used, likely to make the recommendation paia- table--the less 50, II seems to have been urged by the Tory press in England as condition for the pre- servaton of peace with us, that such recominenda- tion would be made.

 The proposition is an necessary consequence oi

 the unfortunate precipitancy with which Mr. Webster pledged this government to the views of nationa law on the subject, maintained by Great Britain, and admitted withost reserve or discretion, the un- qualified right of Mcleod to his discharge Com mitted as the President was, by the act of his Se- crelary he could not extrcate himself, if lie would, without disavowlng acts done in his own name; and it is doubtless to sustain Mir. Webster, that he has entangled himself 50 far in this matter.

 This cntanglement is shown in the confusion which pcrvades this part of the message. The President takes in one place the straight forward View, that the Judicial tribunals the only proper agents through which criminal can obtain his discharge, and that this is British well American practice. He applies for power to enable the Executive to di- rect the Judicial officers to grant the discharge be-

 fore trial; which implies, if his first view be correct,

 desire to obtain power in this respect for the American President than the British practice gives to the monarch. It is mere device to insist that

 the judiciary acts, when its action is controlled by the order of the Executive. .F re { The President further insists that ssgovernment becomes politcaly responsible only when it's trbu- nals of last shown to have rendered unjust and injurious judgements in matters not doubtful Un- der this rule there international responsibili- ty to Great Britain in the case of Mcleod, until the tribunals in the last resort had decided against him.. This last tribunal the President nlirms tobe the Sa prelne court of the United States, for he says that Mcleod had ''thc option" to prosecute his writ of error from the supreme court of the state Of New fork to the Supreme Court of the United States and chose rather to go to trial the merits. We are not clear that there is any such right of appeal ought to be- but if the President thought so, upon what possible ground can he detect in the case of Mcleod, any defect in the institutions of the country to enable discharge all our international obliga- tions1 The point was never reached, according to his own theory, where the responsibility of tue Fed eral Government begins, and he is bound to believe hat the Federal courts, if they sustained the juris- dlcton, would administer national law justly Where in appears from this thcn the want of'sreasona ble and proper means" for the Federal Government to perform its international dutiesl We are brought back necessarily to the conclusion, that the Execu tive wants the exclusive power of deciding, what its duties towards other are, without refer cnceto the courts, and ofcxecutng them OR it's own re- sponsibility even against the judgment of the courts. There can be no other meaning extiacted from the request to be vested with the power of ordering a discharge before trial, when it is further assumed, that m appeal now.ies to ihe Federal courts in the last resort

 Such on assumption belongs to the political school of

 the Secretary of State, and not that in which the Pre- siden has been educated.