The Sun.
London, England, 1864-09-13 00:00:00

The Extradition of Muller.

Owing to the extraordinary interest felt by the
public in this case we take from the New Yurk
papers full details of the hearing in the New York
District Court. The lengthened summary which
we gave exclusively yesterday, however, conveyed

the main features of the case.
The hearing on the extradition case of Francis
Muller, charged with the murder of Mr Thomas
Briggs, near Hackney, London, on the 9th of July
last, was resumed on the 27th ult. before Commis•
sioner Newton. The British Government, through
its consul at this port, was represented by Mr F.
F Marbury ; the accused by his assigned counsel,
Messrs. Chauncey Schaffer and E. Blankrnan.
The examination took place in the United States

District C3urt-room, which was thronged with per-
sons, who evinced the greatest in the proceedings,
and who anxiously sought fora view of the accused.
The litter sat beside his counsel with an unmoved
countenance and a cairn demeanour, apparently the
most uninterested and unaffected person in the
densely crowded court.

Mr Blankrnan said that as the prosecution had
closed their case on the previcui day, having had
everything in preparation for submitting it to the
Court, it devolved upon him to make a few remarks,
in urging upon the Court an application for an ad-
journment to give the counsel assigned to the ac-
cused an opportunity to read over the testimony,
and to agree upon the proper line of defence. There
was, however, much to urge preparatory to entering
upon that stage of the proceedings. The warrant
issued for the apprehension of Muller set forth
that " on the 9th day of July he (Muller) did felo-
niously, wilfully, and of malice aforethought, kill
and murder one Thomas Briggs." If a case of
murder had been made out in accordance with the
statutes of Great Britain and the law of this land

the duty of the Court would certainly be a plain

one. But if to the mind of the Court this did not

appear to be (as it did not appear to him) legal
evidence of a murder having been committed, then
the case did not come within the treaty of 1842,
and there were no grounds whatever for the appre-
hension and commitment of the accused. If the case
even be one of manslaughter it would not come
within that treaty. Whatever view might be taken
of the case, it would be an act of simple justice to
allow counsel for the defence an opportunity to
examine the testimony adduced against their unfor•
tunate client. He, therefore, moved that the fur-
ther hearing of the case be adjourned, in order to
give counsel time to prepare their defence.
Mr Marbury, on the part of the British Govern-
ment opposed the motion for the adjournment. On

the day the prisoner's arrest, Mr Beebe had been
assigned by the Court counsel for the accused. That
gentlema❑ had accepted the task, and had an inter-

view with the prisoner, and it was expected that he
(Mr Beebe) would have been present to defend him
on the day fixed for the examination. The deposi-
tions in the case had been handed to the two able
counsel subsequently (in consequence of the absence
of Mr Beebe) assigned for the defence, and those
gentlemen were present on the previous day when
the testimony of the witnesses was given. This in-
quiry was a preliminary one. Tne commissioner
was si-rting in the capacity of an ordinary commit-
ting magistrate, not for the purpose of determining
whether this man was absolutely guilty or not, but
hetner there was a sufficient degree of suspicion
of criminality against him to justify his commit-
meet for trial, supposing the offence cnarged had
been committed here. In other words, supposing,
instead of Mr Briggs having been murdered between
Bow and Hackney, he had been murdered between
Twenty seven-street and Harlem, under precisely
similar circumstances as appear in this case,
the question then being whether the evidence
that has been presented would justify the commit-
ment of the accused for trial in the ordinary way,
and according to the due course and process of
law. (Mr Marbury) would extremely dislike to
do anything bearing the appearance of a desire
to withhold from the unfortunate man any privi-
lege or right that belonged to him ; but it seemed
to him that the request made by coons,-1 was not a
reasonable one. The wno'e facts lay within an
exceedingly narrow compass, and from the reading
of the depositions, and from the testimony adduced
on the previous day the general conclusion arrived
at must be that, whatever the ultimate fate of the
man may be, whatever the result of the more formal
and legal investigation, enough has appeared and
transpired here to justify his commitment. 'What
follows? Hs is committed for trial ; he is sent to
the scene of the murder, to the place where he can
find and produce witnesses who will state all the
circumstances of exculpation that can be found. A
great and appalling crime has been committed, and
circumstances of great weight and moment con-
nected the accused with the commission of that
crime. Necessarily, the case must undergo an in-
vestigation, and it is not depriving the prisoner of
the right to the fullest defence secured to him by
the common law of England and by the practice of
English jurisprudence to commit him for trial. He
did not think that anything was likely to arise in
the case that heretofore failed to present itself to
the experienced and acute counsel who represent
the accused on this occasion; and it appeared to
him that great inconvenience and detriment would
arise from any postponement of the case.
Mr. Blankman briefly responded to the remarks
of the counsel for the prosecution, urging anew his
motion for a brief adjournment.
Mr. Chauncey Shaffer followed for the defence.
He advocated no new doctrine, advanced no new
law when he declared that there was nothing in
the evidence before the Court to justify the com-
mitment of the accused on the charge here pre-
ferred against him. The accused was a foreigner,
a German by birth, who had a few d lys since
arrived on these shores in the ordinary course of
transit. When any man thus lands here he is
presumed to be innocent of any crime. The law
throws around him that shield of presumptive inno-
cence, and lie is secure, and that power which
sends forth fleets and armies, and which
on this occasion is embosomed in your honour, is
here to shield and defend him from any violation
of that principle. He was not present to-day to
quarrel with the policy of England ; but here he
would fearlessly state, at the outset, that he did not
regard the treaty under which it was thought to
extradite this man as anything else than a violation
of the constitution of the United States, and utterly
inoperative. The great 'Webster held and ruled and
wrote and declared that M'Leod, who crossed the
Canadian frontier, and landed at Slosser, and who
murdered Duprey and sot the steamer Caroline on
fire, and then set her afloat, so that she went down
into the sublime depths of old Niagara, that he
should be set at large. Great Britain defended
M`Leod as justified by the mixed and unsolemn
state of war that then existed. 'Webster was for
discharging that man, after he had been arrested on
the soil of Ncw York and indicted for trial on
the charge of murder. But the Supreme Court of
the State held him, and he was tried and acquitted
but the dignity and sovereignty of the Empire State
was vindicated, and Excelsior is her proud title
still. Now the constitution of the United States
provides that no man shill be put in peril of his
life or liberty, except upon indictment by a grand
jury or presentment of a grand jury, which
means the same thing. The extradition of this
man is claimed by virtue of a treaty between this
country and England. Treaties are made by the
President and submitted by him to the Senate, and
when ratifisd by that body they become part of the
law of the land, with almost the same binding force
as the constitution itself if the treaty be not in
violation of the constitution. lie would not_stand
there and say that it would bebetter thai the nation
should perish than the constitution be violated, but
he would say that it would be far better for him as
an individual, and for all of us, that this once proud
island and all it contains should be destroyed, better
indeed that this goodly island became a sand-
bank for the storms of earth and ocean to
meet in conflict dire—that it should be a
spot for sea monsters to fatten on, thin that the
supreme law of the island should be violated by the
treaty-making power of any other power. Now, by
this treaty you are asked to surrender the man to, be
tri-A for his lite before he is yet, indicted. In that
the treaty is in contravention of the constitution.