The New York herald., 1863-10-15
THE ExrRAD1Y1oN CASE.

ascstions n TO whether the British Con-
sui Has the Right, Under the Extrsda-
rfon Treaty, TO Make Regulation 10
the Government OF the United states
tsr the Exfraditfon OF AN Alleged Crimi-
nal, and the Impending Of the
Alleged Forged Bills, &c.
UNITED STATES CoMMssIoNERs' COURT.
Before John A. Osborn, Esq.
Set l4on the application for postponement Of the
ease in order 70 give the prosecution opportunity to
bring from England witnesses prove the forgery 70 be
IN tnc handwriting OF the accused, Mr. Edwin James,
counsel OF the English creditors argued tho following
points
That two questions arise In this
l. Whether the British Consul at New YORK mas inc
right, under the extradon with Great br'iain 10
make requis'thon us the government Of tho United
States for the extradition OF criminal ana .
3 Whether it is ential that any Indictment should
have been found Obtained in England, where
the crimo c,mmitled, preliminary step 10 the
As 20 the irst quest on it submitted that the British
Cpnsu may inst such proceedDgsas have been done
this case and provisions Of the treaty
and the Congress OF August ~ 1s4s, passed 70
The British Consul officer OF tho British govern
within the meaning Of the treaty. This point has
o. howard r. p. 1887 and the requisilon made In
the 70 IN as in Tins case ard also In the or
p4rte He.libora Il Parker. Or. r.. 429)
SecuDd quesiionIbe terms of the ,reaty with Great
Britain IN order to arrive at the proper construction Of
It. should DO carefnlly read 1t Is specified in that
treaty by whom the requision is to be made whereas
the treaty between the Uned French gov
ernment, IN the foiowing yearnamely 9th November,
l6s3t is provided that the surrender shall be made
only by the authority Of the keeper Of th seals sMnis-
ter @. Justice, on the part the French government
The pa-t OF the government OF tho Ired S,a.es
ae surrender shall be made by the authority Ex
ecGtive ihci eo; ana the treaty with the Swiss Con
federation Of The sth Of November. 1866 there dis
nct prov on that the part Of the United States the
surrender shall be made only by the authority the
executive and ON the part Of the SWISS Confederation by
tae authority OF the federal counsel.
The absence OF such provision in the treaty with
eai Britain leads 20 the inference tha duly consti
tr.ed authority OF the British government this country
mag make the requisition here
Ihe words OF the treaty with Great Rritan which
quie the delivery 20 justice of al persons WHO being
ehargsd wiih the specified crimes shall be found within
she ievi!os sDould be carefully considered. II
required by tue treaty by the of Congress-
such peIsoas "shl have been charged' with the
3srnl aaa in the country whose government lenlnnds
their exradition: but the uso cf tho words "bcing
charged Is fully satisfied by the charge beig made in the
e'uBtry where the offender is found. md tie charge
N ooni Of fact made by affidavit before the British
Consul, 81 satisfy bin that the crime has boon commit
tei before he puts himself in motion and makes the re-
QUESTION.
There NAV he distinction between the british and
Fre ch treaties in this resrect, the fact that tho
Minister Of Justice being the only authorized party to
demand surrender may lead 10 the in rercnca that
accusation shonld been made against the cri
mna in France. although this Ia by a conclu
sive argument
Ened States il deprived c. any privilege authority bv
10 sn Of the adoption OF the proceedings they have
4
rio Of the act of Congress tho executive government has
the entire control of the delivery Of the criminal to the
frn government, aud the req on and the exam,
natcn taken 10 This case are merely preliminary In the
na.cre Of nm inquiry, the ultimate delivery OF the crimi.
ns TO The ioreirn government being vested in execu
Hgs of the Urited States.
ye second sec Of tho act cr Congress makes copies
SesitIons evdehce u-,, s.:s ss mn ori-, ..,,n,
.s ..S saco oreian country ny have 6Ssn ersntod.
shoud heen granted, and the oh vors meaning
ard intention OF the treaty was 10 embrace two classes OF
ss dm the sSs VI s s%S. has
has been cbsped IN the oouptrv the second
whore cr me had been committed and the criminal has
escaped before criminal proceedings could be tnken
ant II this construction s not tho one perfect
Immunity would BE- afforded to criminal who committed
any crno specified IN the treaty and cd from insticc
fmmedtelv nfter s commission, and before any crmi
nal proceedings could be taken In the country such
crnnc had been committed.
Tho Commissioner stated that he had looked into the
question since the last meeting. There variety
OF circumstances connected with the was in EVIL
dencc thar the bills forged The country whore the
crime committed three thousand miles away.
Proper diligence had been used in the matter,
suppressed that Mr. Dunphy would have proved the hand.
writing of the scd and satisfactory proof DO.
krs H.1 .lai ai;ueeses could bo brought forward II
post ocment took place He bad not boon able With all
his research, e find case similar II, wh86 post.
pncmert had been granted for the purpose procuring
witnesses from such distance bu: after consulting
~. and also taking into consideration the duties Of
lions to each other under treaty spulaons he had
erded to postrone this until Monday 1atI Nov4
osr at one o'clock He expected that the prosecution
would then be prepared with ther Evidence fe mad not
ead !in yre hs decs9u, Out would do so il required
AS 10 the question whether was not absolutely neces
sAry that preliminary proceedings had been commenced
N the csintry where the crimc committed,
rnied that objection on the authority Of Woodbury.
Nnot (vol l. 66 in the OF the British prisoners
snc also tho authority OF the iainc case
twty a hc court decided that proceedings instituted be-
fore consul sufficient.
Mr.. Edwards, for the accused moved that the bills
exchange oorcd in evidence should be mpounded and
rrtaned ~ tho custody Of the Commissioner.
Mr.. Marbury opposed the motion, representing that In
case Of the absence from England OF the by whom
the bills had been recognized fogeries II might be
necessary exhibit them acquainted with the
handwriting OF the accused.
The Commissioner decided oa retaining the bills in his
own custody.
Mr.. Marbury submitted that the time fixed For the
pcetronement too Short with all possible dill
genoe the part or Mr.. Bailey; but ths Commissioner
Declined tn extend the cay ntimating that if the wit
nesecs not then hand motion for further ads
3ournment mipht t- made.
Adjourned 70 November 49, O'Clock p N.