The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-07-23

s &c 70 Ds no snIs reference According
nIsar LAY the doncl OF an Ambassador
Mnlser Exraor dnary Consul Is part Of the
independent cf this, the question here Is not
whether sovereign country may not punish per:
ions sSotnsg into Its hands for crimes committed
lswnether crime committed upon the admitted
territory and within the exclusive government OF
Jurisdiction Of another nation TO facilitate the
punishment OF crime Is desirable, but the United
any foreign Power can acquire Jurisdiction Of any
KIND within their territory by virtue OF its local
Of the esty the Is %aa r. s
THE UNITED STATES AN ASYLUM FOR EUROPEAN
but the objection is not Matter Of law nor ia IT
Sue US matter OF TACT. and, II 1t was, the United
states, as an act OF courtesy, may deliver up
lated by an extradition treaty ss compgrenensive
Is tne parties thereto see proper to make 1t; or,
sb by
the claim to Jurisdiction ACCOMMODATING the
re9usition IN this case may open the door to con-
IN other respects, made under their local laws by
foreign governments. The plain and practical rule
OF nation Is Commensurate with ana confined to
ITS actual or constructive territory, excepting
fS s %ass Ss e @ are
Queens Bench. in Pionan's case, Best and
Smith, Smith, Page e. upon application 6y the
crime ofipiracy. committed upon an American ship
on the high seas, and fugitive from justice In
1912 with Great Britain, held that the words
"withln the jurisdiction" In said treaty meant
within the exclusive jurisdiction Of the United
States, and did not apply to cases OF piracy on the
high seas, as the person charged Herewith was
usscea table 3 any country where ne
dissenting opinion, thought that the term
Jurisdiction" meant the area. whether by
land or water, over which the law Of country pre-
walls, and said that 1t Is admitted that o ship is
part OF the territory Of the State at all events
that this shpreferring to the one on which piracy
was committed-was within the jurisdiction OF the
United States, SO as to come within the statute. -
Thomas Allsop, British subject. was charged as
an accessory before the fact to the murder Of
United States and as he was punishable therefor
BY the laws W. Of Great the as to
the American government under
THE ExTRA At! TREATY OF 1872
Fitzroy Kelly since Chief Baron Of the Exchequer,
ana Sir Hugh Cairns, since Lord Chancellor, and
of the opinion that Alsop is not person charged
with the crime Of murder committed within the
Jurisdiction Of the British Crown, within the mean
ing OF the Treaty of 1872 and that his extraditOn
cannot properly be demanded Of the United States
under that treaty" FOrsyth's cases, p. $685. This
Is decision exactly In point and Of high authority.
PhimOre, in his work on international Law"
volume I, page 1872, says:-'There are two cir
cumstances to be observed which occur IN these
country demanding the criminal must be the cOun-
try in which the CRIME is committed; second that
the act done on account of which his extradition
Is demanded must be considered as crime by
wharton, In his work on the "Conflict of Lawsr
(section 957), says:-"The only admissible restric-
ton of the term Jurisdiction Is to treat 1t as con-
verthle with country. and to hold that no
In the country Of the requiring State" and this
view 10 not without support In those expressions
as IN the
IN which the requisitiOn Is made, implying as 1t
were, change Of country. David Dudley Field. in
MS Outlines OF an international Code, speaking
OF article proposed in extradlti0n, says the ar.
Gle, in its present form, defines
THE RIGHT OF EXTRADITION,
as 1t Is now recognized extending only to crimes
committed within the Jurisdiction of the demanding
nation. II may be thought desirable to extend the
rule to OFFENCES against the law Of nation COM
mitted beyond its Jurisdiction, which 1t would have
power to punish II the offender comes within it's
the twenty-seventh article OF the treaty Of 17Sl
with Great Britain, says that 1t was confined
expressly TO who are charged Win murder
either nation ana who seek refuge in another
meaning their territorial Jurisdiction respectively
charged with certain crimes committed within the
Jurisdiction Of the requiring party, and Attorney
REQtIsrIoN BY THE FRENoE GOVERNMENT
upon the United states for fugitive under this
Dy the fugitive while actually in France Is, Opin-
ions, 2lsl; The Courts in this country have held
.uno, uuu0A cCOuOu oIuCiC =, vi Iu0 COubtl-
tuition, providing for the reclamation OF one
State upon another for fugitves from
justice. the requIsltion must show that the
crime was committed within the territory of the
requiring State Is Mclean, 1881; Sanford, 70l).
have carefully read the elaborate opinion Of Judge
BlatchfOrd upholding the Jurisdiction In this case
transmitted In your letter. but, with difdence and
regret, am compelled to dissent from his views.
They do not appear to me to be sound In principle
or sustained by authority. Able writer's
have contended that there was recipro-
cal -. obligation upon nations to surrender
generally agreed that this is altogether matter of
comfy But, 1t Is to be presumed. where there are
treaties upon the subject that fugttives are to be
surrendered only In cases and upon the terms
specified in such treaties. COnformably to what Is
above stated make q negative answer to your
question. have the honor, &C.,
GEORGE H. WILLIAMS, Attorney General.