General Butler then proceeded to a consideration of the special and peculiar questions raised by the cases of Fielden and Spies who are foreigners. He contended that treaties were the supreme law of the land, and that these prisoners were entitled, by virtue of treaties with Germany and Great Britain, to all the rights and privileges of American citizens at the time such treaties were made. A State had no power to try these men by one of its own laws which was not the law of the land at the time the treaties were ratified. He did not mean, he said, that a foreigner could come into a State, and break its laws with impunity and that the State could not touch him. But he did mean that the State could only try him in accordance with the law of the land--the whole land--at the time the treaty with his government was made. This, he said, was an important question to every American citizen, because in return for the concession made by this government in the treaty with Great Britain the government of that country had made similar concessions to us. Suppose that a citizen of the United States should go to Ireland and should make some remarks about the advantages of a republican form of government, and should be arrested and tried by the crimes act in violation of the treaty. Would we not stand up and say that this man must be tried by a fair and impartial jury? He must be tried as an Englishman would have been tried at the time the treaty was made, and he cannot be dealt with in a more summary way under a later law. GENERAL BUTLER'S ARGUMENT. If this should happen, General Butler said, he hoped that the English authorities would not be able to hold up to him a decision of the United States Supreme Court sustaining the right to try an Englishman by the local law of a State which was nothing but a swamp and a howling wilderness at the time the treaty was ratified. Returning to the rights of States, General Butler said that he was not prepared to deny that a State might change its organic laws with the consent of all its citizens, but such change would not bind a citizen of another State who had not assented to them. IMPARTIAL JURIES AND NEWSPAPER LIES. After some desultory remarks about the record and the necessity of laying it before the court, and another reference to breaking open safes and desks, General Butler said: "There is no doubt that the prisoners were entitled to a trial by an impartial jury--a stupid jury, if you please--because I don't think a man who reads newspapers is any more competent to try a case--rather worse if he pays any attention to their lies." As enunciated by chief justices of the Supreme Court an impartial juror, he said, is one who "stands in freedom of mind, without bias or prejudice, and is indifferent." The petitioners were not tried by such a jury and are entitled to protection under the federal constitution.