New-York tribune., 1873-07-23

sovereign country may not punish persons coming
into hands for crimes committed In another sover-
eignty but tho question here s whether crime COM
elusive government Of an Independent nation IA com
mited within the jurisdiction of another nation To
facilitate the punishment Of crime Is desirable, bu the
United States cannot with dignity and safety admit that
any foreign pewer can acquire Jurisdiction OF any knu
within their territory virtue OF It's local enactments
objection is made to this construction OF the treaty on
the ground that 1t will make the United States an asy
lum for European criminals; but tho objection Is not
matter OF law Is u true matter of fact, aud n 1t
the United States act OF courtesy may deliver
up fugitive from Justice, or the subject may be regua
ted by an extradition treaty as comprehensive the
parties thereto see t to make IT. Or, II IL should ap
pear necessary, Congress might possibly Interfere Ny
To recognize the claim TO Jurisdiction accompanying
the requiston IN this case may open the door to eonu
sion aud controversy as TO claims Of jurisdiction In
other respects made under their local laws by foreign
governments. The plain and practical rule upon the
commensurate with aud confined TO its actual or CON
structye territory excepting changes made Dy agree
ment and to this effect are the authorities
Three or the Judges OF the queens Bench IN lionai
case Best and smith, page CAS-, upon application by
the United States for Ponan charged with the crime OF
piracy committed upon an American ship on tle mgh
seas, and fugitive from justice in England, made
held that the words "within the jurisdiction sau
OF piracy on the high seas as tne Pn,r person
where he was found ChieJustoe Cockburn in his dis,
sentng opinion thought that the 10 rln JurlsulouSh
meant the area whether by land or water over Whlcn
the law Of country prevails and said that 1t is admit
red that sbp Is part of the territory OF the State
at all events, that this snip, referring 10 tne vo H
tion OF the United States, go as 20 come within tne
statute Thomas Asop hed9n 6e aDs 70 tho
murder of O Frenchman in Paris, In 1858, and es
capped TO the United States, and as he was punishable
therefor by the laws of Great Britain the question TO
whether he could be demanded Dy Great Britain OF tne
American Government under tho Extradtion treaty of
1912 wis submitted to Sir J. D. Harding, the Queens
Advocate; the Attorney and SoicorGeneral, Sir tltz
roy Kelly since Chief Baron OF the EXohequer and sir
Mc(diTns.
corded their Judgment as follows;
1--WE are OF the opinion that Allsop is not person
charged with the Of murder committed within the
jurisdiction OF the British Crown within the meaning OF
the Treaty OF 1892 and that his extradOn cannot prop
erly DO demanded of the United States under that
treaty" Y."-fFOrsyths case, y. 2GS.l
This is decision exactly i'll point and of high author
Phlimere in his work on International law volume
l. page 4SS) says; "There two circumstances TO be
observed which these, and in all other cases OF
eXtraditi0n; first, that the country demanding the
criminal must be the country in which the crime is com
mtted second that the act done account Of which
his extraditon Is demanded must be considered as
wharton in his work on the "Conhict Of Laws Csec-
tOn 95T, says "The only admissible restriction OF the
try and to hold that no reQusition lies for an Of
fense not committed within the country OF the
requiring State" and this view is not without
support in those expressions of the treaties
which speak OF the persons claimed as uRltlVes anu
as seeking an asylum In the State in which the requis
On is made, implying, it we're, change OF country:
David Dudley Field IN his outlines of an international
code speaking of an article proposed in extradiiOn,
saws Tie article in its present form defines the right OF
extradtOn it Is recognized, extending only TO
crimes committed within the jurisdiction OF the demand
ing nation.
Attorney General Lee in constituting the 27th Article
of the treaty 1894 with Great Britain that IL was
confined expressly TO persons who are charged with
murder forgery committed within the jurisdiction OF
either nation and who seek refuge In the other meaning
their territorial Jurisdiction respectively. II Opinion, o3)
| 1t may be thought desirable TO extend the rule 70
offsnses against the law Of nation committed beyond
its Jurisdiction which IL would have power TO punish
/ the offender comes within its jurisdiction. .
Our extraditiOn treaty Of lSiS with France provides
for the delivering OF persons charged Win certain
crimes committed within the jurisdiction OF the requiring
party aud Attorney y-Genera Gushing held that requ
sition by tho French Government on the United states
for a fugitive under this treaty must show that the
crime was committed BY the fugitive while actually In
France. Is Opinions 2l9) The Courts IN tins country
have held that under section article OF the COnsutu
ton providing for the reclamation by one State upon
| must show that the crime committed within the
territory Of the requiring state. u Mclean, lS5I San
! ford, 7O)
have carefully read the elaborate opinion Of Judge
BatchfOrd uphOlIug the jurisdiction in this case trans
mitted In your letter. but with didence and regret
am compelled 70 dissent from his views. They do not
appear 10 be sound in principle or sustained by
authority Able writer's have c0ntended that there was
a reciprocal obligation upon nations TO surren-
der fugityes from justice though now II
seems 10 be generally agreed that this Is alto
gether matter of courtesy. But 1t Is to be presumed,
there treatise the subject that fugtyes
be surrendered only in and upon tho terms
specified in such treatise ConOrmaby to what above
stated make % negative answer TO your question l
have honor be, respectfully, your obedent
servant. GEORGE II. WILLIAMS. Attorney y-General