New-York tribune., 1867-05-15

view his adjudication upon the question undertake
10 say whether he erred in adIudging tho proof sufficient
in cvtradion cases acts by special authority undcr to
act Of Congress- aud no appeal given from s deosiC
M tp eCf and he does not exercise any pGrt or what l
Technically Consd1Icd The judicial power of the Im'Ct
staies That IN no event Is The issuing OF writ oi haDcs
GOWNS matter Ci COURSE but Icss, even when isSabe
M all i'm the sound discretion Of the Court and whenever
Che ciruunsncos SHOW a@ u thiS cas' tat would nov
Mr. LaTaUsh argued at some length In support OF
MI CHARLES Wclde counsel for the petitioner. in repy.
said the questions 70 he discussed Helo IasE Nlelilr
aiA Certiorar SCI0rd' Whether assuming the fret
question answered oirmaiyely the Court may 60 be
6iod lbe mere commitment OF the COuuSsioIcr Ihtrd
Whether tbs Court may discharge the prisoner. being
satisfied Of the nsuiicicncy OF the grounts oil commit
That all these qucstions intimately connected, it
being his intention to review the pFoceGdnes on the Com
miSohes se ovisions OF the ConsntoG Of The United
M Seae Of te r Of haies. corpus sce suspended
s when OF rebellion or invasion the public safety may
nnseI for the Prussan Government would have this
article amended by adding " or unless when in cases OF
cxtradition foreign powers shall demand it, The Con-
etifuffOu saws art. Ill sec. q:
The iDdicis pow shall extend al In w and euv arising
under Constitution the iavs Of the United States s"d treaties made
second: The prisoner may demand that these wrs be
issned as a meiter of strict right under specific federal
laws Third The decisions OF the United States Courts
maintaining their power o. & ISSUING these Wits
lied fo these wrifs by the law of the land Eh
Tho writ of habeas corpus Is III the nature OF writ OF
and the Judge or may after having issued tho writ
go behind the warrant to ascertain whether there are sur
hcent grounds TO hold tho prisoner an on
proofs 10 the contrary it may discharge m from arrest
Slt The English Courts MAINTAIN tue rights Oi oisOs'
whose extradion is demanded under treaties Win ior
eign powers. to the issuance OF these wrlts -, .,
MIR Wche argued at considerable length IN support OF
these points, and cited numerous authorizes lie also
attempted TO raise the point that the prisoner was an
nchoate citizen of tho United states, having declared
his intentions to become citizen, but was lhteIuped
by the Court stating that unless c0uSel cOud SHOW tt
the prisoner was citizen Of the United states at the
time of the alleged commission OF the ohehse IL was use
less 10 say anything further on the SUBJECT D., -, -
The Court also informed Mr.. Wehe that IL was OF no
nae raising points eXraueOus 10 the case ana sid e
ony nues6n ne cared 10 hear him in relation TO
the right OF magistrate 70 review thc proceedings
taken before another magistrate IN rehuon 10 cases
which either magistrate had been by act OF Congress
specially designated TO hear and determine. whether.
IN short after sucs, had becn heard ana deter
mined by of the several mngsres so apponteu 10
pointed could review such case lhat ~ 10 thc cases
i'm British Courts those Courts had generu while the
United States Courts had special jurisdiction.
Mr. Wchlc concluded by citing decisions, which nc
thought bOro this point ald tald hhauy' that VI ~
Commissioners decision final III such cases, theTe
was no remedy in case lie erred.
Mr. IonongL made brief rejoinder, cOntending that
whether not the COnmls Oner was clOthcd Win
authority by virtue Of the treaty and 0f the Act oi Con
ress i'm pursuance OF IT, to adiudC1e finally and concii
ve i'm hs case that the question OF hardship had almost
Invariably been raised In eXtradoh cases but Sehefhl
with ycrv little reason the cXtraditiOn OF alleged
motives did NOT punish them as convicted criminals but
simply sent them 10 he tried by jury Ot tncf own cO
trynlcn Mr.. Lapaugh concluded by asking an carly
decision. -, a., -.
Judcc Sbnman said he was unaware, until the argu
ment in case that there was so much confusion III re-
lation points raised and would therefore take time
TO thoroughly examine the lnattcli consult Wltn MT
Justice Nelson and give decision that would be final
ity and thus have foreign powers thoroughly understand
their rights under oxtradition treaties ad Wouh tners
hN should decide 60 grant the writ counsel lust DC pre-
pared to immediately 90 on with The case