The New York herald., 1867-05-15
THE COURTS
uKl1rn STATES CIRCUIT COURT.

DtIVIe Juuko SuiPAhnhs
In ns Natter Of the application of Philip Heinrich
fora Writ Of Habeas Corpus applicant in this case
lie charged with being fugitive from justice from the
kingdom Of Prussia where, alleged, in the city Of
Cologne in that kingdom he committed several for
genes in hts capacity secretary to the Rhenish Rail-
road Company the sum alleged 10 have been drawn on
such forgeries amounting to 5000 thAers.
The examination Of the prisoner on the application Of
the Prussan Consul General for his rendition 70 the
Prussian authorities underthe extradton treaty exist
ing between the United States and Prussia occupied
considerable time before Commissioner White and
suit in the Commissioner issuing his certificate TO
the sucency OF the evidence to warrant the extrad
on OF the accused 10 Prussia the charges preferred
The is brought into the Circuit Court motion
for writ Of habeas corpus. and yesterday argument
was heard on the part of the Prussian government TO
show why such writ should not ssue and the part Of
the defendant in support Of the motion for the writ
The court opened at nine o'clock, when the case
at once proceeded with.
The Prussan government was represented by the
Prussan Consul General, Baron Won Gnbow, and by
Mr. Henry De Lapaugh. counsel The accused repre-
sentsd by his counsel Mr.. Charles Wehe.
,h stated @ s 70
the prisoner his arrest examination and the decision
arrived q by the Commissioners
Mr. Wehle inquired Of the Court II the Affirmative did
not rest with him to open the case In behalf OF the
motion.
Judge shpman said in all cases wherc man was
under arrest counsel would be entitled to motion for
writ Of habeas corpus; counsel comes here TO show
cause why II should not ISSUE and therefore the airma
tive was with the opposing counsel, Mr. Lapaugh Mr..
Wehle would have opportunity to traverse all The new
facts that may be set up In counses return.
Mr. Lapaugh then proceeded 10 address the Court.
taking the ground that jurisdiction vested In II
the issue but that the examination into the
provided the convention for the mutual delivery Of
criminals and fugtves from justice in certain cases,
concluded between Prussia and the United States the
10th Of June 1862; and according to the treaty and
the act Of Congress giving effect TO said treaty,
neither the judge nor commissioner acts in
extradton proceedings by virtue Of any right
merely, or by reason OF any judicial character with
which he is clothed in the ordinary accepiaon OF that
term but he acts IN such cases only under and by virtue
Of his being specially assigned and appointed to do
In other words, only under and within tho jurisdiction
aud authority vested in him by the treaty and the acts
of Congress before mentioned, aud not otherwise The
application in this case Is made by the supreme political
Of the United States and the proceedings bring about
the exradition of the party claimed having been in
strict conformity with the treaty, there is power,
jurisdiction or authority in judicial tribunal to issue
of habeas corpus ccrt0rar rcview such pro-
ceedings And further, 1t was never contemplated by
the trainers Of the treaty that the Judge magistrate
commissioner who examined into the crimnaty OF tho
accused should be prevented by ano her judge magis
trae or commissioner from performing his duties there
on, pointed out and required Of him by the treaty.
Exclusive jurisdiction Is given in this matter TO the
United States Commissioner, and this Court cannot 60
jurisdiction for the purpose o. reviewing the facts
Counsel then quoted various authorities in support Of
his propositions and continued Counsel on the other
side misconceves the effect Of the commitment in this
case. The commitment Of the accused in this is
very different from the commitment OF party by
the Commissioner in your Honors court for
crime which your Honor has full and complete
jurisdiction. The act which allows the writ Of
habeas 10 be issued prescribes the in which
1t may be issued provided the party committed for
trial in Court Of the United States Now, this Is
entirely different Here the court of itself has
iurn ri cfiau ovop crfsn Mel tho
United States Court any other acquires II
have any jur sdc,ion to commit for trial any Of the
another country The proceedings In the matter Of the
extradi,ion OF fuatives from justice from foreign
character IL is demand made by the supreme political
power Of PRUSSIA upon the supreme political power Of
this country for the rendition OF man charged with
in the country from which he fled And although
there Is difference Of opinion to what may be the
exact character Of the commissioner judge who hears
the testimony 10 these cases as TO whether he acts
merely in minis eral character In judicial
capacity venture to say that when demand Is made
ing Is one Of ministerial character, and not al all Of
judicial charactsr except 10 go far As n is provided by
statute that The Judge Or magistrate hearing the case
particular statute. and not By any power In
s5d n !, him Inn. =. rI Judge o. magistrate S ,c
who shall hear and determine or strictly speaking.
who SHAH hear ana consider the evidence and who shall
United States thAt tho evidence Of crimipality u sum-
cient sustain that charge. Neither your Honor
fore the writ OF habcas corpus cannot BE- invoked in
order to give the court jurisdiction which does not
exist The only question here is whether the offence
charged in the warrant and the evidence sustaining
charge is sufficient. The proceedings here show that
prisoner properly brought before the Commis.
siouer and that his examination occupied several days.
the evidence being vouninous and the Commissioner
TO whom assigned the duty Of hearing and consider
ing the testimony and whose duty ! was 70 certify as to
ity OF the United Staes made such cerdcatc-ail
that thing has been done In strict conformity with
the treaty and the act OF Congress AL shis, counsel
maintained, complete and perfect answer to the
application for writ Of babcas corpus In the case. II
would be unjust and improper 10 ssas such wr ana
for review the wboe case which occupied %
days before tho Commssioner, and TO hear anew the
case no: in the mode prescribed BY Law, either by the
treaty the acts Of Congress passed for giving effect to
On the close OF Mr. Iapaueh's argument the further
hearing In the was sdourned til three O'Clock In the
afternoon.
Al three o'clock, Judge shpman being on the bcnsh
Mr. Lapaugh askel permission 10 present an addition
al authority In support OF the expressed by him
showing wny the motion OF the issuance Of writ
Of habsas ana csiorar should be granted -Dcci.
OF Judge Bots Ia the exraditioB case Of tho British
government va Daniel W. Van Aefman.
.On hxbeas corpus sued out BY . prisoner who IL
held under warrant OF commitment issued by United
States Comm isoner ordering him to be detained and
given up thu British authorities fugitive fruzn
Justice from Canada under treaty OF Washington, Of
August 1e42 this Court cannot review the merits Of
tie decision made by the Commissioner, either ON the
lf me Commissioner had no jurisdiction OF the case
or there legal evt nee before him tending 70
prove the accusation, the mandate OF the Presi
dent for the Of the prisoner wss issued without
warrant Of law, the Court will discharge him. But II
win NOT inquire whether the Commissioners erred In
deciding that the offence charged was committed by the
prisoner or was an offence within the treaty"
Judge shipman 70 prisoners counss-ln the nee Of
that decsion don't sec how you can proceed f.
Mr. Wehle-f your Honor hears me have some
decisions 0 TIE Supreme Court In similar 10 thA
Judge Shipmsn-You may proceed. Will hear you.
Mr.. Wsl1e shen proceeded 70 address the Court sub.
mdtng three questons which he proposed 10 base
his argument:-1 whetber the Court has power 70
issue ths wits Of habeas corpus aud certiorarL 2.
Wnether assuming the nrst question % be answered
apmatively, the Court may 70 behind the mere CON-
mismcnt Of the Commsssioner. u whether the Court
may discharge the prisoner on being satisfied Of the In.
sutnciency Of the grounds Of che commitment
counsel then reviewed authorities ip support OF his
propositions That the prisonor Is entitled 10 these ws
under the provisions OF tho constitution Of the United
States which declares that the privilege OF the writ
Of habeas corpus shall be suspended unless whom IN
cases Of rebellion OF invasion the public safety
quIre IT. He commended thai to deny that privilege 70
the prisoner the article scotiou o OF the constitution
must be amended BY adding or un Lena when In cases