The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-11-15
TgE FAREZ ExTRADlTioN CASE.
History of the Cnse--Nice Points Of National
and International Law.

and International Law.
This case Is rapidly growing in interest and i'm
portance, and the questions now arising upon the
writ OF habeas corpus granted by Judge Batchford
are likely to be matters OF national concern nvoly-
ing as they do the Interpretation OF the extradt!on
clause In the general convention with Switzerland
ratified in 1855, and which now for the first time Is
to pass the ordeal of judicial examination.
Upon the complaint OF the Swiss Consul Commits
soner Newton issued his warrant Tor the apprehen-
sion OF Farez on the sth OF october, 1869; he was
arrested on the 18TH OF the came month
on board the steamer Atalanta and al
the money 10 his possession secured; this
amounted 10 very little, about $500 francs.
on the 18th he was brought before Commissioner
Newton and the prosecution, being unable to present
any evidence OF his crimlnalIty, requested an ad-
journment until the LIST OF November. day or two
after Farez's counsel moved before the Commis-
soner FOR the discharge or the prisoner on the
ground that no evidence having been produced OF
his criminality the Commissioners had no power
under The act of Congress TO remand him, or, in
default Of his discharge, that he have an immediate
hearing. The Commissioner denied this motion IN
long ana elaborate opinion which was duly pub
lshed III the HERALD.
on the first Of November, then, Farez was brought
before Commissioner Newton, but the prosecution
desired another adjournment. TO enable them to
translate papers which they said had been received
the same day. Under objection and exception by the
prlshers counsel the case was held over TO the 9TH,
Oh which day the papers in question, consisting OF
warrant Of arrest issued by Mr.. Brodssard, an
examining magistrate at Berne, Switzerland, were
offered in evidence. but being Improperly autlent'
Gated the document was ruled ont by commissioner
Newton, objections being raised by the prisoners
counsel. The prosecution having no other eViuenee
10 oiier requested a postponement or thirty days,
that the document offered might be sent back 10
switzerland TO be duly legallzed, on that other
papers mlgnt be sent on 10 this demand the Com
missioner acoeded, and the accused was renamed
until the 9TH Of December 70 await the procurement
OF testimony. The prisoners counsel then offered
rather han ACCEPT this delay TO withdraw all obec
uoGs and allow the paper presented TO be admitted
but tais was not allowed by the magistrate, and
Faroz returned to the Ludlow street jail.
At this stage the present proceedings were instl-
tued. Application FOR writ Of habeas corpus was
made 10 Judge blatchtord, who declined to grant
1t without previous notice being given to the coun-
sci for the Swiss government and argument had.
This was accordingly done, and on the 9th OF
November, after hearing the objections urged
InaulIicency OF the warrant, the Judge granted a
Aabeas,n returnaDle on the 10th Of November.
no appreciate the subsequent proceedings 1t is
necessary TO know that the main objections taken
by the prisoner were-First, thai only certain CON-
m.ssioners are authorized by law TO institute these
exlradition proceedings, and Commissioner Newton
not being designated on the face or the warrant as
one o. those 50 specially authorized, no jurisdiction
appeared. ana, second that no such warrant could
be issued without u mandate from the President
directing II, ana no such mandate appeared TO have
On the 10th instant in obedience to q writ Of
habeas corpus, Marshal Harlow appeared court
with the prisoner and respectfully made return that
lie held HIM by virtue Of warrant issued the Sth OF
October and also by virtue OF q second warrant
issued or the eth OF November after the service
upon him OF the writ o. habeas corpus aforesaid
Prisoners counsel objected TO that part OF the re.
turn setting up a warrant issued after the date OF
the writ ana proceeded to discuss the merits of the
first warrant Tho Judge, however, refused to
listen 70 any argument upon the first warrant, re-
marking that the second warrant We're good there
was nothing further TO be said. The matter was
adjourned twenty-iour hours to enable counsel TO
search for iaws, DC
Alter tue lapse Of twenty-four hours counsel and
Marshal and prisoner appeared once more before the
second warrant had nothing 10 DO with The
case. The Judge, however, again declined to hear
argument npon it, ard the second warrant was
thereupon attacked. The first objection was that
the Presidential mandate said 10 have been procured
was merely mandate rom Hamilton Fish, attested
by The seal OF the Department OF STATE and not q
mandate nom Ulysses 5. Grant, with the great seal
OF the nation, which, the attorney contended was
essential. The once famous case OF KANE the Eng.
lishman, argued by Brady aud Busted aud decided
by Nelson ana carried to tie Supreme Court was
cited In support Of this theory but failed to impress
the mind Of the Court, and the point was overruled.
This being disposed OF the next objection that
the warrant was improper, because the complaint
on which 1t was made was insutflcient, the foreign
warrant referred TO In the complaint being entirely
Inadequate. The Court refused to 90 behind
the warrant on q habeas corpus, remarklng
that certorar was necessary. On this point, how
ever the Court stood corrected after q citation OF
AUTHORIZES, ana directing the counsel TO file ira
verse again adjourned the proceeding, declaring
tnaI the complaint ana the basis Of itmust be exam
ned aad Il insufficient the prisoner should DE dis
charged. reply was fled ana the complaint IN
question produced, together with the foreign war;
rant which, II appears, charges The prisoner with
an offence known III switzerland as 'faux en- ecrl-
ture Ge commerce. While the word in the treaty is
merely 'faux,' winch, standing alone Is equivalent
~ our forgery;n but, it is cOntended being quail
ned with the words above, Is minor offence,
not Intended to DC comprised III the treaty.
The matter Is to be taken up again to-day az
three r, ~, when the judge VIII require testimony
III regard 70 the meaning and definition OF the term
faux en- ecrlture de commerce. The Judge has de-
cared II now very important question, and inti+
mated to counsel that 1t must be presented with
care, 80 that proper decision could be arrived at.
ii the theory Of prosecution be correct the de-
renee contend switzerland could demand OF tue
United states an offender IN a minor degree. while
tae ntea States would be powerlass to recall from
the otEer side an individual VINO might have COM
mlted a Ike offence here.