Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1873-07-22

mitted here, and this, IL is said shows that the
United States as well as Germany claim an
extra territorial jurisdiction. There seems to be
no point in this reference. According to inter-
national law the domicil OF an ambassador
minister extraordinary or consul is part of the
territory he represents for many purposes; but,
independent of this, the question here is not
whether sovereign country may not punish
persons coming into its hands for crimes com
mitted in another sovereignty, but the question
here is whether a crime committed upon the
admitted territory and within the exclusive
government of an Independent nation is
committed within the jurisdiction of an
other nation. To facilitate the punishment
OF crime is desirable but the United States
cannot with dignity and safety admit that any
foreign power can acquire Jurisdiction of any
kind within their territory by virtue of its local
enactments. Objection is made to this con-
stucton OF the treaty on the ground that IL
will make the United States an ASYLUM for Eu.
ropean criminals. But the objection is not
matter of law, nor is it true as matter Of fact,
and If 1t was, the United States, as an act OF
courtesy, may deliver up fugitive from justice
OF the subject may be regulated by an extradi-
ton treaty as comprehensive as the parties
thereto see proper to make IL; or. If it should
appear necessary, Congress might possibly in
terfere by legislation. To recognize the claim
tojurisdicton accompanying the requisition In
this case, may open the door to confusion and
controversy as to claims of jurisdiction in other
respects made under their local laws by foreign
governments. The plain and practical rule
upon the subject seems to be that the jursdIc-
ton OF nation Is commensurate with and con-
".
cepting changes made by agreement, and to
this effect are the authorities. Three of the
judges OF the Queens Bench in Tionsn's
case Is Best and Smith, p. 64S) upon
application by the United States for Pionan.
charged with the crime of piracy, committed
upon an American ship on the high seas, ana a
fugitive from justice in England, made under
our extradition treaty of 1872 with Great-Bri-
tain, held that the words "wthin the jurisdic-
ton, " in said treaty meant within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the United States, and did NOT
aDply to piraPy n tha foh
person charged Herewith was justiceable in any
country where he was found. Chief Justice
ooekburn, IN his dissenting opinion, thought
tchether By land or Uater, over which the law Of
a country prevails, and said that it Is admitted
that ship is part of the territory of the state
or at all events that this ship referring to the
one on which the piracy was committed, was
within the jurisdiction OF the United States so
as to come within the statute.
Thomas Allsop, a British su beet, was charged
as an accessory before the fact to the murder of
a FrenchmaR in Paris In 1858, and escaped to
the United States, and as he was punishable
therefor 10y the laws of Great Britain, the ques-
ton as TO whether he could be demanded by
Great Britain of the American government un-
der the extraditiOn treaty of 1872, was submit
ted to Sir j. ID. Harding, Queens advocate, the
attorney and solicitor general, Sir FitZroy KEEL
ley, since chief baron of the excheQuer, and
Sir Hugh McCairns, since lord chancellor and
they recorded their judgment as follOws:-"we
are of the opinien that Allsop is not a person
charged with the crime of murder committed
within the jurisdiction of the British crown
within the meaning of tie treaty of 1912, and
that his e1tradition cannot properly be demand
ed of the United States under that treatyn
lFOrsyths Cases, p. $685.
This is decision exactly in point, and of high
authority. Phillinore, in his work on interns-
tonal law, volume /, page 49,, says:-"There
are two circumstances to be observes which oc-
cur IN these and in all other cases of extra
dition.
/. That the country demanding the criminal
must be the country in which the crime is
committed
2 That the act done on account of which his
crime to both states.
Wharton in his work on the conflict of laws,
section 957, says: "The only admissible restric-
ton OF the term jurisdiction is to treat it as
convertible with country" and to hold that no
requlsitiion lies for an offence not committed
within the country of the rec airing state. And
this view is not without support in those ex-
sons clamC d as fugitives, and as seeking an
asylum in the state on whom the requisitioa
is made implying as j; were change OF coun-
David Dudley Field, ESQ.,, in his outlines of
an international code speaking OF an article
proposed on extrsdition SAWS: 1.-THE article in
its present form defines the right of extradition
a. il is now recognized extending only to crimes
committed within the jurisdiction of the de-
handing nation. 1t may be thought desira able
10 extend the rule to offences against the law
Of nation committed hey ond its jurisdiction
which 1t would have power to punish if the Of
fe nder comes within its Jurisdiction
Attorney General Lee, in constituting the 9th
article of the treaty of 1894 with Great Britain,
says that it was confined expressly to persons
who are charged with murder or forgery com
nitted within the jurisdiction Of either nation
and who took refuke In the other, meaning then
trTltOTtdl Jurisdiction (opins S3.)
Our extradition treaty of 1913 with France
provides for the delivery up of persons charged
with certain crimes committed within the
jurisdiction of the requiring party, and Attor-
ney General Gushing held that requisition by
for fugitive under this treaty must show that
the crime was committed bv the fugitive while
actually in France Is, opinions 2lS.)
Courts in this country have held that under
sectlon2, article 4, OF the constitution providing
for the reclamation by one tate upon another
for fugitives from justice, that the requisition
must show that the crime W committed within
the territory of the requir lg state g Mclean
1873, Sanford 701.)
have carefully read the elaborate opinion
of Judge Blatchford Uphold the iurisdie-
ton in this case, transmitte I in your letter, but
with difhdence and regret | am compelled to
dissent from his views. Tn Y do not appear to
me to be sound in prince lie or sustained by
authority. Able writer's / we cOntended tn at
there was reciprocal obi ition upon nations
to surrender fugitives from Istice, though now
1t seems to be generally greed that this is
altogether a imatter of CO.. ity. But it is to be
presumed where there a: treaties upon the
subject that fugitives are 70 be surrendered
only IN cases and upon q. terms specified in
such treaties.
ContOrmably to what Is owe stated, make
a negative answer to your lestion =
L have the honor to b very respectfully,
your obedieDt servant,
GEO. II. WILLIAMS. : .torney General.
nvlu