History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Volume 5Smith, Joseph, Jr.
History
History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Volume 5
Smith, Joseph, Jr.
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; Smith, Joseph, Jr., 1805-1844
In consideration of all which, he is entitled to the _aegis_ of
that community to defend him from wrongs. He takes upon himself
no allegiance to any other community, so owes it no obedience,
and therefore {228} cannot disobey it. None other than his own
sovereign can prescribe a rule of action to him. Each sovereign
regulates the conduct of its subjects, and they may be punished
upon the assumption that they have known the rule, and have
consented to be governed by it; it would be a gross violation of
the social compact if the state were to deliver up one of its
citizens to be tried and punished by a foreign state to which he
owes no allegiance, and whose laws were never binding on him. No
state can or will do it.
In the absence of the constitutional provision, the state of
Missouri would stand on this subject in the same relation to the
state of Illinois that Spain does to England. In this particular,
the states are independent of each other; a criminal fugitive from
one state to another could not be claimed as of right to be given
up.
It is most true, as mentioned by writers on the laws of nations
that every state is responsible to its neighbors for the conduct
of its citizens so far as their conduct violates the principles
of good neighborhood; so it is among private individuals. But for
this, the inviolability of territory or private dwellings could not
be maintained. This obligation creates the right and makes it the
duty of the state to impose such restraints upon the citizen as the
occasion demands.
It was in the performance of this duty that the United States
passed laws to restrain citizens of the United States from
setting on foot and fitting out military expeditions against
their neighbors. While the violators of this law kept themselves
within the United States the conduct was cognizable in the courts
of the United States, and not of the offended state, even if
the means provided had assisted in the invasion of the foreign
state. A demand by the injured state upon the United States for
the offenders whose operations were in their own country would be
answered that the United States' laws alone could act upon them,
and that as a good neighbor it would punish them.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account