Daily State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1864-06-24
The Case OF senior ArgueI,c>.


.
itself by anything contained in these papers II
Marshal Murray acted under written oroer II
does not appear. Mr. Stewards sentiment Is tha'
the correspondence shows the arrest 20 have been
made by order OF the President. de may mean
that the President subsequently ratified the act
How far such ratification j. legally possible Is
an interesting question. But the transaction II
SELL an act OF government, gives rise 10 graVet
and more important inquiry IL i wen Known
that we have 20 treaty OF extraditloh Win SPAIN
The demand for Argueiles does not seem to have
come from the Spanish government. but from the
Governor General of Cuba IL appears TO have
been put bv that officer upon the gross and
scandalous'' nature of the outrage charged
aeains, him. Mr.. Seward yielded TO the sugges
ton that exceptional measures should be taken,
aud the arrest was made in a manner which
forms an exception TO the practice, not only OF
this, but of every civilized government The
question then arises whether the President can,
without treaty or &C; OF Congress, direct that
stranger sojourning here shall be seized and sent
secretly out of the country without judicial pro-
cess or examination, and without giving the per-
son thus banished an opportunity to be heard
against such treatment In the first place. can
there be extradition without treaty. 1t is doubt
less true that high authority can be cited for the
proposition that as a matter of strict right GRIM
nals should be delivered uD TO the states IN which
their crime was committed. But however this
may be IN theory, the practice of nations is the
| other way. The subject of extradtion is in Eu-
rope regulated by treaties, which exist between
almost all the Continental States 1t is difficult
to understand why these treaties should have been
made it the obligation which they create we're
recognized as already existing and binding. The
effect of the enumeration oi crimes for which
tradition Is stipulated would be % limit and re-
strain the obligation To deliver up criminals, II
such obligation already existed But treaties
aud laws of the European States treat it as at
most an imperfect obligation, requiring for its
effective force the sanction of agreement and law.
But were this otherwise in Europe, it would not
change the rule here. And it is perfectly settled
| in this country that extraditon depends wholly
upon treaty The subject underwent discussion
very soon after the formation of the Government
| In the year 1871, it was proposed by General
| Pinckney that certain fugitves from Justice
should be demanded of the Governor OF Florida
then under the Spanish power.
Gen Washington referred the question to Mr.
jefferson, who reported against the demand, on
the ground that the United States could not de-
liver up refugee without treaty, and that our
Government could not ask of Spain what it
could not grant 10 her under like circumstances
In his report he saws: The delivery of fugitives
from one country TO another, as practiced by
several nations is in consequence OF conventions
settled between them, defining precisely the cases
wherein such deliveries shall take place.
The laws of the United States, like those of
| England receive every fugitive, and authority
has been given TO our executive to deliver them
up" In 1893 the question again arose Mr..
Genet demanded the delivery to him of two
French subjects, Mr. Jefferson. in reply to this
demand, again asserted the rule laid down by
him two years before The laws of this country
| tal,o ba IF Grin cd
out of their jurisdiction The most atrocious Of
fender, coming within their pale, Is received by
them as an innocent man. and they have au-
thOrized no one 10 seize or deliver him. de
therefore refused TO comply with the request of
the French minister, unless it could be brought
within the provisions of the consular convention,
which provided for the rendition of seaiearing
persons The rule thus laid down By Mr. JEFF
} ferson has regulated the practice of the Govern
ment down to the present day 1t has been APP
piled again and again by the State Department
to demands for extraditon, and has received the
sanction OF most of the Attorney Generals of the
; United States Mr. Writ, in 1871. discussing
the demand of the British Government for
: certain mutineers, said: There being no treaty
in this case, the Constitution and laws of the
} United States are the only foundation of our
power They give US no right to arrest but for
! the purpose OF punishment; and we cannot ar
rest when we cannot ourselves punish. The
: seizure of this man on the application of the
2 British minister would be act of usurpatiOn "
In Sullivan's case in 1921 he again maintained
: the same doctrine in nearly the same language
r When Portugal demanded the surrender of the
) Pirates of the TrumphO, in 1888, Attorney
General fancy said, 1--WE have no treaty with
Portugal for the delivery of offenders. In such
state of things it has always been held that the
E President possesses authority 20 deliver W
] the offenders"
Such was Mr. Legare opinion IN Dewit's case
which must be familiar to Mr. Seward, for il was
J submitted by him when he was Governor of New
York Aud Nelson aud Gushing applied the
same rule whenever the question arose. And
e finally in Metzgers case, the Superior Court OF
the United States gave the sanction of their au-
thorty to the proposition that 1.-The surrender OF
fugitves from Justice is matter of conventional
; arrangement between the States no such OBJ
e legation is imposed by the law OF nations"
From these authorities--and there are none
I higher than Jefferson, Writ and Taney-t ap.
e pears that when in the absence of treaty stpua-
D ton Argueles was delivered to the Spanish au-
thorlties, it was violation of the practice of the
I government and the American doctrine of the
J law of nations But if We admit the existence OF
: the comfy to deliver up offenders, it does not
justify Mr. Seward-for he is not the govern
ment If a person is to be sent out of the coun
I try it must be done under some law. treaty
? which is a law Until Congress provides some
way in which this comfy can be practiced it mus
: remain practically unrecognzed by this govern
] ment For the Secretary OF State to act without
{ such sanction, is, as Mr. Writ says, "a usurpa
ton"
q case occurred during the administration o
b the elder Adams which aroused deep feeling
e throughout the country account of the undu,
I executive interference which was charged agains
the President person named Nash, or Rob
bins for he was called by both names, was ar
rested in South Carolina upon complaint of thu
British Consul, and brought before the L 5
: District Court, charged with murder committed
e on board of an English vessel. After his ex
n animation, the President addressed TO the Judge
a request that he would deliver up the prisoner tC
the British authorities. provided satisfactory evil
: dence OF his criminalty should be produced
: Upon hearing the testimony the court caused hin
. TO be surrendered. For this act. done under
= treaty. and after the fullest examination b,
:. dical authority OF the charge against the prs
: Oner. the President WAS denounced with grea
! severity.
: The House of Representatives spent many day
: in its discussion. and might have passed resolu
! ton of censure had not John Marshall proved
: in a speech of great power that under the treat
and after the examination, II was Tor the execu
;. tive to make the surrender. The manner OF tn
= arrest of Arguelles was in even more hagran
contempt Of established Jaw. Ii is well know
&c that he Was taken from his bed al night con