New-York tribune., 1867-06-14

10th sds. + now proceed to dispose OF the material
questions which have been rsseq e e h r precsS point.
raised by the prisoners c0usei asaist te pioceouss
IN the present case and the oi io ao%o oery
tiOns the power OF the Courts OF the Ubed ca.es
The Justices and Judges T .ror" To- revise The 40
ton OF Commissioners where they commit pcfsons of
surrender under extraditi0n treaties cofcct unuer
standing of this subject important In view OF the fact
that power is often aud so GonSesed
form. In the case OF Nicholas ycremaitre aud Others
fgitives from the French Republic Judge Juusos ssns
District of New York held that power 20 revise
the Judgment OF the Commissioner on ne Questions ot
csnt o their face he declined to tho proofs and
remandcd the prisoners to be held the
,ies Of the United states Legal Observer vol
1917 In the case OF Thos Kane SuagS bes, ~ n inc
ion covering various questions and subsantay airmng
the rule laid down by Judge Judson Lesa sia
down by Judge ingerso in the District Court for thss
District in the OF Alexander Hebronn new fork
Judge remarks 'where there IS legal evidence before
evidence is deemed by him sufficient, no matter how
many others may deem 1t insufncieDt ana ne grants
and no Judge has right to disregard IT, TO render ID
Intellectual at least not TIL the expiration OF TWO calendar
one can revise the opinion Of tho Commissioners but the
President. The President has that power ne should
soner on the hearing not sufficient 20 sustain the
charge then it would be his duty to withhold warrant
OF extradOn Iitshoud be his opinion that IL was suf
cient then would be his duty 70 grant such warrant
The necessities Of this case therefore, do not require 'has
should express opinion upon the suhicieDcy OF tho
evidence upon the hearing before the Commissioner Az
still later date in the Of Won Aernam Judge Bets
turn before it OF writ OF babeas corpus has further
power than TO ascertain snd desrinns Shsos
ing him 10 imprisonment and whether the Commisones
Judge upon that complaint find, afrmatvely, In this
both these inquiries and therefore decao .nss
have authority, under this writ, TO review tne ust
~ he Of
Reports p 64 The case OF Kane, which nave stoaay
ing his cxtradtion went through various phases WIN
different results in different Courts He was rst aires,ea
and and SsSFf Of s S & the
York. and, after hearing. the Commissioner s
for surrender under the charge made against hum He
subsequently brought before the Circuit Court on
set forth in the opinion Judge Belts above cited After
this and after the Acting Secretary Of state hsd ssea
warrant directing the Marshal to deliver up Kane 20 e
British Consul, the matter brought before Che sa
prene Court q the United states That tribunal wa,
in tho case, and authoritatively decided only one
RSSn' Ss aHS snSe Ts' Hos fas' sTsna
p. lO3 Blatchfords Reports opaio% pa ss,ss. ..
quenty Mr. Justice Nelson. sitting at Chambers issued
writ corpus and brcaeht the prisoner before MN
csion OF Judge Betsstting the Circuit Court npoa
the return of the writ of habeas corpus before that court
erninc tho question whether the commitment under the
Commissioners order warrant was legal OF nOt-w
as2s nsS Sy Vrns SaT no o writ But
Nelson overed this objection for stated IN hs
TO examine the case on the evidence witch the Comms
sone had received in support OF the charge and aeeaea
Justify the conclusion Of guilt to which the com,assioner
had arrived There were other points decided ana on
in this place s:oa Ss they oSr hays no DeTsns s Ss
| decided that the Commissioner had no com
petent evidence before him. He. therefore did not dl
1 I.far fha
had had competent evidence presented 70
him tending TO prove the charge OF crmlna,ty u weua
not have been within the righfu power OF the Court M
the Judge nj Chambers review that evidence, and
i failed to nPPoT S sns sasS sc hs Conn
nissoners warrant But the whole spirit and scope OF
preme @ % COURT a. as well as the ons delivered BY him ..
Chambers tend toward the assertion and vndcation OF
this power To the matter at rest however am au.
horzed by him after full consultation the point 70
state that such is his judgment OF the law Is men.
law Of this Court and is Therefore the duty or tho
Court in the present look into the evidence upo.
which the Judgment Of tho Commissioner rests ana
compancs saGd with VIII ' the writ directed to him and
TO pass upon its weight as vel as upon its oomPe,
course which should be pursued in the performance OK
this duty in this and similar cases VIII oe re- 70 On n
this branch OF the case In order possible 10
acter now proceed to the examination Of this
its merits and to apply rules which must govern
raised by the prisoners counsel rest upon the acs
that he arrested In Wisconsin by special deputy Of
insisted that this deputy had legal authority to exc
the warrant OF Mr. Justice Nelson out OF the limit
OF 1883 U. s. Stat at Large 81 Is referred TO as conca
sive point This section gives the Marshal no as
thory execute preceps beyond the limits or his s
rct and il therefore argued the deputy in thu
could not lawfully execute this warrant IN anche
district The warrant In question issued by Mr Jus
tce Nelson and addressed to the Marshas OF the Une
States for district respectively aud TO Their depnes
ss them Ine te reSePs Ss Of the President OF Tie Un
| Gtats In
| and forthwith bring him before the said justice
Ur magistrate sGss s at SswYorE 60 The operation Of the
warrant is not limited IN terms TO any uscial dres
the e for he
amena6e 20 trial In particular district HIS exHni
from from Ss Tned States He wa % be- arrested in ord
that he might be delivered good cause being show1
fed The section Of tho Judiciary act referred 90 has
application TO arrest under extraditon treaty
aud proceedings under such treaty could have bee,
contemplated by It's trainers Indeed, application
to warrant, for the arrest Of fusitives from foeis
states, would make the execution OF these treated
Which such fucitives might be arrested Under such.
construction the hearing and delivery must Dc N .S tSs
shall could remove him to another district The SD see
ton OF the Judiciary act authorizing and regulating
the removal OF parties arrested In district ts
held for trial in another clearly has no application
shal Of Wisconsin should have arrested Heinrich under
this warrant But he could not have performed this'dnV
required by the warrant. under tne
law urged, for II his under IL are TO be connea
TO his district then he could not have executed tnss
part OF the precept which required him TO bring the -
cused before Mr. Justice Nelson Commissioner White
at NewYork. Considering the object OF the treaty the
provisions OF the statute for carrying IL into onecIW
authorizing the arrest OF fugitive in state or Ter
rory the United States and the OF Mr. Justice
Nelson's warrant, satisfied that the arrest W ss
and that the Commissioner had JURISDICTION ins .na %
objection 20 tha proceedings h that the complaint uon
which founded contains charges OF arge
number Of ofenses The claim Is that ony one one .,' ,
shoud be charged In the same complaint No arga'
mems Is necessary TO refpte such an on5ecuon =, a.,
for fha commission OF fOurteon,