The New York herald., 1866-09-26
THE CASE OF THE SWEDISH SAILORS.

THE CASE OF THE SWEDISH SAILORS.
Argument on the Habeas Corpus-Powers OF
the Stnte Court TO Review the Decision of n
United States Court-The Duties of Forei9a
C0nsuls under Extradition Treaties, &c.
COURT or COMMON rEAs-oHAMBKRs
Before Judge Cardozo.
SgPr 25.-M the Mater of Sir SWsdish Sailors s-rhls
case came up yesterday return to the writ OF habeas
corpus issued application OF Mr. Edwin James coun.
sci for the sailors II will be remembered that the
pr brought before Judge Belts the United
States Court motion being made for their discharge s
being claimed there authority for their extradi
ton under tho existing treaties between this country and
Sweden. This motion was denied, when the writ Of
habcas corpus applied for aud granted The
accused of mutinous conduct board ship
Mr. James appeared In court to argue the n bs-
half Of the Sailors and Mr. Da Costa on tho part the
Swedish Consul.
Mr. James remarked that the petition for the writ
e and also the return OF the United States Marshal
The admitted that be held those parties in h.s
custody by virtue Of some requston made by the
Swedish Consul Before the argument proceeded
with he mr. James) would like to have tho men pro-
duced in court In accordance with the writ or habeas
corpus Counsel hero read the return of Marshal MUIR
ray which, among other things, averred that he hold
possession OF the prisoners by virtue Of commitments
Of Commissioner Newton. and also that he held them
for the purpose OF being delivered to the Swedish Con-
sui upon his requstion Upon this petition and retnrn
his Honor would certainly demand these men to be pro-
duced The section of the statute authorizing the wrt
be granted required that the body OF the person should
be produced before action could be taken and the
party is then in the custody OF the Court until remanded
II was case in which very important question arose.
The United States Marshal claimed Jurisdiction under tho
tho provisions of a treaty to hold these mon
until the Swedish Consul should require them. II
he should choose to deliver them up while the proceed
ngs under this writ were pending 1t would be great
breach of the privileges of this court, well gross
interference with justice. The statute to tho produc
nff fha hpdu nfpru A Anari loan md
| English authorities agreed upon this doctrine The
court issuing the writ had perfect right to demand the
was no authority, and in this case there
whatever why such course should be taken great
question was 10 be aised-how far the right Of extrad
ton given to any foreign government II prepos
ferrous to assert that those men could be extraded with
respectfully that they should be produced and
placed IN such custody as his Honor would determine.
Sweden and Norway, and would protest in the most
specu manner against the authority OF the State courts
Judge cardozo-Is the writ directed to the Consult
Mr.. Da Costa-It is not, sir.
Judge Cardozo-Is 1t directed TO the United States
Mr.. Da Costa--It s sir
Assistant United States District Attorney Phcps-rhs
marshal holds these prisoners under United States
warrant, and this court has jurisdiction.
Mr. james, shall hen ask for an attachment IL the
men are not produced.
Judge Cardozorake ordor to show cause reurnabls
tomorrow His Honor thought since the OF Metx-
GER decided by Judge Edmonds there was no doubt -
to the authority OF the State courts the
Mr.. james sa that II Mr. Da Costa would give an un
dernkng 70 the court that those men would not be gvoa
this motion had been disposed or hc would be perfectly
satisfied
Mr. Ds Costa was willing to ncquiesce so far as his per-
sonal acknowledgment would 60 The vess would nos
leave port for two weeks
attention. and decide II as soon as possible There was
no doubt but that the court had authority the
writ and the bodies should be produced.
Mr. Da Costa--The statute provides that II these mea
arc produced they must DO handed over to the Sheriff
them over again to tho United States Marshal
hr Da Costa again argued that it not necessary 10
produce the bodies under the writ
Judge Cardozo-It Is invariably the practice 10 DO %
together with full return.
Mr. James cited instance OF a in which he was
engaged in tho Court OF Queens Bench In England,
where writ Of habeas corpus granted the party
being in Canada and the body had 10 be produced before
Mr. Da Costa remarked that In order TO save trouble
he would have the men brought from the jail.
With this understanding Judge Cartlozo allowed The
argument upon the merits OF the case TO proceed.
Mr. James said ne would traverse the return and demuS
Mr. Da Costa there were somo objections to tho
writ rs issued II was hardly worth while to go on with
the argument The petition was fatally defective
Judge Cardozo said he would hear the points In this
branch OF the case In connection with the argu-
ment
Mr. James then proceeded TO ably discuss the Ioesl
grounds for holding the prisoners IN custody, well g
tie relative jurisdiction OF State and United stAtes
courts The case involved proposition TO what was
the authority Of foreign consus under treaty powers re-
grdng the extradton Of parties while under laws Of the
United States, whether those consuls had the right
without previous examination, or showing any evt-
dence whatever OF guilt, 10 call upon the United States
government 10 extrade any man In support OF hiU
Uhc consuls) decision as TO such mans Ruiit
The question arose substantially upon the treaties of
1877 and 1s46 with Sweden and the United staes The
treaty was to be found In the eighth volume Of the
statutes at large, page 352 One OF the articles OF this
treaty gives che Consul authority decide all differ.
ences occurring between the captain and his crew. but
Mr. James claimed that the crime OF muiiny did nos
como under the category OF ''diferences.n Counsel
then went in this strain for ime arguing that
the Swedish Consul had no authority in the Issue
rcquisition for the prisoners tha examination Of
the should have been had before their case could
be decided by United States Court which examination
had never taken place, and Judge Belts had erred in
arriving at CONCLUSION as 10 the commitlal OF thu
prisoners
Mr.. Da Costa followed IN opposition and delivered an
able argument In support OF his side OF the case He
denied the authority OF the state Courts In natter
und quoted several authorities TO subsantste his ssssr
tions
Judge Cardozo reserved his decision