Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1864-06-09
Lord psnmap, the Lord Chisf Justice Of Eng,
land, 1t the same time, spoke a. followsi

pressed the noble Earl and that this country there
right Of delivering up indeed OF securing
persons accused Of crimes committed 10 foreign countries
The matter under discussion qlenty when the alien
bill had been year after before the House Of Commons
and the lawyers OF all parties had come to the same con
cusion.
"Nor these opinions confined to the lawyers Of
Europe great lawyers OF America, men distinguished by
their profound erudon whose decisions are 30 highly
speced among aud whose valuable works on great legal
questions studied and consulted in this country with the
highest advantage. held the same doctrne-indeed.
Chancellor Kent his Comm American Law
1885, appears incline 10 The opinion of Grous and Vse
against that Of Other eminent ursts that accused Of
emes ought be delivered he country where hey
accused and appears have been decided by him
self he held his office i'll conformity with doctrine
Bot it be remarked that the peculiar Constitution
Federal Government pretending many States with
laws renders decision however respectable of less
application, lesst till all the particular provisions
exsr when IL made fully canvassed But stice
Story his recent edition Of the Conflict of Laws
QSl conc udes discussion This ubect by citing the
passage from Lord Coke add in chief justice in
America he's sdher, TIE d, ctrine ella
Judgment that the reasoning If another chief justice in
leading leads to the fusion and that stands
indirectly confirmed by maio y of the jud of the SUI
preme Court of the United States in # the
deepest interest,"
"Therefore although distinguished ursts may feel de-
sire for for the surrender of foreign GRIM
male it would seem that the municipal law of America
rests the principles as own which, as he had
already stated, recognised right and provided
chnery by which the subjects of another Slate seeking
refuge here could be given the country 10 which they
belonged He had therefore, come prepared respectfully
to warn Secretaries Of State if it had not been rendered
unnecessary by what had passed. that they could not seize
detain aliens king refuge here without subjecDg
themselves to actions for damages for false imprisonment
and without further mourning the risk Of still heavier and
more awful responsibility for if attempted to seize
alien under such authority he might resist and if deah
ensued he would be justified in infctng it, while those
who ordered his and detention would be liable to be
tried for murder He agreed with his noble and learned
friend that the comfy OF nations might be properly
ployed in considering of treaties and laws which would
allow nations to seize and give up to each other their
specive criminals. But this could only be done the
supposton that the laws of all nations should be
BILE ard Just for country could be justified enforcing
those laws which it believed to be founded on injustice
oppression, and cruelty Some few great criminals had
possibly been given without notices but he believed that
the United States OF America had refused to give up
English ,ubect charged with forgery because they dsap
proved Of punishment of death for that crime and until
internal law of all countries such that each would
have objection to adopt it, he feared that this desirable
object could not be accomplished. He INDUCED hope
that those distinguished persous the judges and ursts
America who had been referred to- would in with
those of other countries apply their minds to these
erations
Lord Campbell held the following language on
the subject
He said that after the statement of their opinions by
his noble aud learned friends he should have fell
necessary to address their ordshps if it had not been
asserted, and widely circulated that he had when Aor
ney General, advised that similarly crcumstanced
should be sent home for trial. Nothing could be-
contrary the fact than such statement He had
given am opinion of the Kind On the contrary, he had
held that by the law f nations State bad right to de-
mand from another the surrender Of any of subj cts
and that the of England, the municipal law did
authorize enable the executive tn comply with any such
demand He agreed with the Lord Cbrf Justice that il
might be Convenient to have treaties under which
persons accused of murder end other high crimes should
be surrendered but such treaties would not justify the de-
being acted until the municipal law provides the
for carrying the treaties into execution Without
of Parliament there authority for giving up
q refugee TO any foreign State"
The Lord Chancellor spoke as follows at the
close of the debate:
'He apprehended that be the only law Lord in the
House who had not yet given his opinion. He had been
consulted upon the question, well as the Attorney and
Solicitor General aud, without pretending to state the
terms hich their opinion had been given he might
that fully agreed with what had been advanced by noble
and learned lords who had already spoken He did not
think that q second opinion could be entertained"
1t will thus be seen that, according to tie uni
versslly received naxims Of law as held in the
United States and Great Britain, the Executive
authority is not authorized In the absence of trea-
ty stipul.tons and of municipal Legislation carry
ing them into effect, to arrest and deliver up fugi
tives from justice. Hence the origin and purpose
of the 10th article in the treaty of Washington,
negotiated between the United States and Great
Britain in the year 1912 by Mr.. Webster and Lord
Ashburton, providing for the extradition of per-
sons charged with certain specified crimes he
treaty under this head ordained that "the respec-
tive judges and other magistrates of the two Goys
ernments shall have power, jurisdiction, and au-
thority upon complaint made under oath, to issue
warrant for the apprehension of the fugitive, that
he may be brought before such judges or other
magistrates TO the end that the evioence Of crimi-
nallty may be heard and considered and if, on
such hearing, The. evid,ace be deemed Sufficient to
sustain the cha'gs, it shall be the duty of the ex-
aiming judge or magistrate to certify the same to
the proper executive authority, that warrant may
issue for the surrender of such fugitive"
The treaty, it will be seen, contemplated a judi
cia inquiry preliminary to every act of surrender.
And an act of Parliament was passed in the year
1S43 g Victoria, chap. 76] to carry this part
of the treaty into effect. How important, we
should say how indispensable, such municipal le-
gislation is to eectuate stpulatons for the extra
dition of fugitives from justice was illustrated by
a notable case in our judicial records case which
led to the enactment of corresponding laws in our
own country for the regulation of this whole mat
ter, as covered by treaty engagements and exclud-
ing the exercise of such authority in all cases not
covered by treaty.