New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1846-11-04

c5e or offence or the punishment OF II a. f-,br s,
80 Tor, VIA va. before Il only proSfaea lo ne ~
5T.-v OF fugitive criminals parties acc1-e - no
recognized 6v The existing Law OF each
II i-I .-o-- Tho ope-.tion peralty OF re q
sic i6e sd or7- Thsttbe Treaty could aqa 80
srt taking eject before Il y As .iaae' - G Of Nations
il that would fall 5scE upol -. hr has. rrder
S the arrest and delivery might a. -. .f.-~a. The
forIrth article OF the Treaty $50 :. Tb. ne
Ie-s1y covers his position, The worcs orans, t1 s
provisions in this present ConTehtion 1000 s,ris
r,re5 .1ierior 10 The dde thereof ttavins cisposec
o: tbs pom. in case shall proceed 20 e ,feo4G 80
.auev Whether the crime charged lpoa Lle prisoner
-, b such as i recognized By the aws OF france or
hose OF The United States -, r.
a-eed hs the high contracting parties shall or teeuis-
rips made in through the medium OF her re-
s5ective Diplomatic gents denver up 20 tsace persons
Mo being accused Of the crimes enumerated in the
following article committed within The jurisdiction Of The
recurring psriv shall seek asylum shall befourd with
In he territories OF the other ProsGef ihs. this shall De
done onlv when the OF the commission OF The crime
shall be so established thar the Laws OF the Country il
which fugitive the persons accused shall be found
would just his her apprehension or commitment Tor
trial If the crime mao been there committed
Article ll-Persors shall be delivered up who sha.!
be charged according The provisions OF The Convention
with anv OF The following crimes. 70 Wiz Murder com
pretending the gusie II the French Penal Code
by The terms Assassination Parrcce inianfcide and POS
oningl ~1ih ~ Attempt 70 Commit AurGer or Win
Rape or with F0rE-ry or Win Arson, or Win i9szE.
By Public Ocer, when the same Is punishable with
Infamous punishment
The counsel Tor the prisoner couerded that by the
terms Of The trestv the prisoner could no. Dc d.
ivered I'D unless il shown that CRIME had been
committed which recognized and defined by The laws
Of The STATE OF N,yrYo hat no crime had been proved
but only the scls OF the prisoner and the acts prove
crime Il such crime would be recognized here
ACCORDING IN bis icy of H.. Iuulsons OF The Couv-u-
ton md asked WHY The crimes enumerated n the
d ariel. # such the meaning Thst his must De
as general principle OF svv and that only in the event
for surrender be ustine6 That the proceedings IN ms
case must be regulated d the laws Of the ace and ciied
Inc case OF Toe People Henry Narr under the tshour
ION T.atv w5irb cas-. ia reporied IN " y Legal Observ
o. page So N which NJ Commissioner Morton sustained
- I1' w 49,, So III. -cr1r-itrreu. for trial #
that the eydence would justly 1s -
III. crime hg: beer committed here Or IN oher words
nu.; be such crime would be punhaoe III Ce ta o
SeYork ay-e-ablv 10 The Of the State. On the FIRST
point there ~ doubt be lays down NE CorteCt rue
nor r there arr rule Interpretation which would or
could give i different coustrVcion. pu Nl' ~
coln that 5esucs crime as 'rold Dc PHns'G' " r'
STATE # committed here, or IN other "oF9s Aa te
OF the crime must De such a. Is 1tCOeuI~eu % v'I
he i in nv Judgment clearly IN error and AN sal'l-d
mai ne did not intend express an opinion 30 repuSnan
win the terms meaning AMI language OF ne treaty Win
f;,.,f Rrsin and 80 much WIKI the obvious
nte1tiou Of the making powers and 10 he dictates
common sense though IN he case before MN II so happened
bat The crime charged rgan-i arr the sane IN ctaT
acer as recognized BY the laws OF ool most
Of our avs are zen from theirsand hence IN tle opinion
i, biz The magistrate he may have SO ve ed the sipuls
lions OF the Treaty. the distraction not being moJsd N the
cssa He did Ger ainIy sanction OF h opinion favor
sh IN The vi. taken by the counsel for the prisoner IN
The present huttis obviously nh error anc one
49,, ~ ,,,d at.at IN. very object which the Gov
erur1ers mad in view in making the treaty II such IN
deed theory or basis OF treaties ior he
offugitive criminals, would hfsi De- necessary o each
no
and make them couurmable each other both a. 10 the
definition OF crimes and punishment or II such was me
case wherein the necessity demanding the surrender OF
gitive criminals all that would be necessary would
~ 10 furnish III. necessary proofs against tue offender 10
IN. Government; and have him tired IN the county TO
which he et The very nature oil Ie ''nhh1 9il oi "
term Fugitive from Justice shows that he has lied IRON the
penalty operation Of the laws IN his own country =
moi for an offender against Law under which lie did
not live and winch he could not be amenaDe ou Tor one
committed against the laws OF country IN when ne re-
sided and fugitive fleeing from their opelatlou aI
avoid making The aionemen required And II such demand
the crime or Glshient 10 no consider
ed in the same light by Laws, or according TO the
nhrssooyv or technical -tncons which may exist n
The definition OF crimes-ihere s Treaty and The cheet-
intended 10 effected completely nusatory and perfect
immunity Is offered 10 The criminal.
This cannot and the very nature and reason oil Tue
case shows IL. -,
in of the fir, article the treaty shows 20 be soal
mode OF proceeding in the case-naey te arrest ana
examination the offender must be- conducted IN strict
accordance in form and substance win our Jaws reg
uating the and examination OF Offenders or, IN
other words. the proceeding mus ne Tue -""e ~ " ~"
crime had been committed here ~,
osi.nders-Vde 5 provides that when complaint ,ha j!
be- made on oath before Magistrate that crime mas Dee
committed by any person the Magistrate before "hou
said complaint shall made. shall -sue hs warrant ana
brig IN. party accused before hu and sha! proceed a.
soon n mas be- examine the complainant ana any VIZ
produce In the presence o The prisoner upon
OATH the offence charged ana ~ 20 any ohef thhlt'
connected with which hc may deem pertinent giving me
prisoner or his counsel the right 10 cosseNaine the COM
IT,. examined and is 10 ID that he satlibery
that be pnliO hif
After which he has the riShi 10 maze NJ '"h "
amined he has any, and TO be- assisted by MS counsel
After he has been fully heard. and hls witnesses ana Us
coUu>e! his behalf, men il h'cohe' he uu'y VI 'ne
Magistrate determine trst, whether crime Is sho" 10
have been committed siirmatyely and seconi, whether
there probable 20 believe the prisoner 10 ne gu
o: iaid If lie determines the affirmative on oolh lese
points then becomes his duty fully commtihe prisoner
for ris If in the negative then discharge from custody
This examination 20 conducted intended for the beneh,
of In. accused partv Il In very essential respect
trial NOT A. 10 lie affirmative guilt OF the party olowed
hy a nd
opportunity OF establishing his innocence
This distinction necessary 10 he kept IN view IN ms
cas governed be by the Statute referred to- and
OF the Just and merciuI provisions OF our
Criminal Laws that This preliminary trial investigation
should be- guaranteed the citizen. 1t Is based upon That
jealous and regard for the rights aud liberty OF me
subject which characteristics the free and enish ned 7
ulion- couury. And would here remark that there
position in the whole range OF the Judiciary OF equal
importance involving higher or greater responsoles
than that Police Justice presiding al Crnlaal trlbu
nal which is sdjudicae upon the sht. ana loeres OF
the citizen, standing a he does al ue YER threshold OF
the personal liberty of the subjects Clothed Win power
the iniudic careless ignorant use o which may be
attended with III her nature to The
character Standing and future prospects IN lite OF the party
over which II may be thus exercised. II wa. well argued
by The Counsel for the prisoner in this case ihai mere -s
picon uctenIio justify either NJ arrest OF
detention of any one The rule i !hal the pcrp-tTaon OF
crime positive and uuequivoca.ly established
Then ihai there probable cause 10 pect mat the parry
accused committed IL Ibat probao' csHse mus o pe
vague and loose suspicion, mere nu- De 7uch con
meeting circumstances 10 leave on the mind weiound-
ed belief Judgment mat Inc parry IS pooapiy Pus OF -
and The after the arrest must then ne OF me
emu l4lhi
escape punishment the innocent be recEle-sy OF heed
rssy committed and IN his investigation the magistrate
i not confined those strict rules OF evidence applicable
10 d case trial before Jury but he may extend Us IN
vesgAiiou and receive require evidence and testimony
which would Tot be permitted 10 come IN or be used on
I such trial.
The whole scope OF preliminary examination beng
10 SATISFY the the probable guilt or innocence
of the accused by winch lie must determine whether ne
should committed for lra discharged, nave made
these remarks in view OF Aer important bearing n ni-
case and before proceeding examine the evidences ''
have produced before that my duty may DC clearly
understood the question 20 be determined wlch :
Has been committed sdHSt ts code penal Of rance
embraced IA the Treat and there from Tx rvdenes produced
before me probable Cause se!ierr the be guilty Of IT,
The identity OF the party accused and OF his having been
The Notary residing Sanasuimines has been clearly
established and i denied Nh Borg, the NIceS on
sui The charge. IN addition 10 his own titGagli
upon which he made. produced CERTAIN c"cN
nienIary evidences the testimony OF
purporing have been sksa before citerue IIi4Isry
Judge of instruction the District OF ssnasulUnrs No
see The Eth, 18th I'd and -th OF March and on me
ih and 5h day- OF Apr, l5i5 and aso thu! OF Joseph
krals which given before this Court as previously
stated in The pres sEce OF the accused
To The charge addition 10 his own aH1iaslt
upon winch made he produced CERTAIN doc-
evidences in The testimony oi il-ty-iJuF mess
purporus hsre bees before E.ienu- Ihi!Ie'
~ Judge OF Instructions, the District OF Sai!aguaiias
MO--lv The 1ih lsh. I'd and I'm OF March ane ne
ith and 5 O: April 1876 AID $50 that OF Joseph Mas
which given before i- Court previously stated II