New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-06-03
THE COURTS.
THE Mcdonnell CASE.
LAWS GOVERNING ExrRADmoN CASES

LAWS GOVERNING EXrlsADlIloN Oa' . r
In obedience to Judge Blatchiorus wiz "
hahess corpus IN the case Of Geo. Macuonno -
ic.t ior,.r an the Bank Of England, Marshal flsAo
-, tho prisoner into the United States
C, C,rt Indqes woodruff aud Blatchford pre-
,tl,r, aud made return TO the writ that nc heiu INC
,oc,.,d nv virtue Of Commissioner Gutmans COM
,t,.r aud also by virtue of the secretary VI o'ato
r.,entlv issued warrant Of extradluoh' MI DIooAe'
Atoonuolls counsel, asked for time TO examine more
,,,,orIv the MarshaTs return. NJ. Da Costa,
irho Win Clarence A. Seward and f. f.
,,lS,,,r,, rcnresepted the Bank OF England,
,,ootod IN an adjournment, and Judge Woodruff re-
~, In Grant one on the ground that the matters set
forth in The Marshas return must have been known TO
the prsoncrs counsel Mr. Brooke then read traverse
n tho return to the effect that the matters therein al
legged are not sufficient 70 warrant the detention OF 'he
prisoner that the Commissioners commitment docs hot
show evidences OF cuminay which, under the laws OF
tho STATE Justify his imprisonment that the commit
mont and the warrant OF extradton accompanying IT,
are insufficient aud informal aud that on April "a the
prisoner acquitted OF the charges made against h
Mr. Da Costa said that he did not intend to reply tothe
traverse because his opinion the statute under winch
the proceedings instituted was sufficient answer
Judge Woodrun-The traverse raises questions OF law
on the cerorar and it also presents question OF iact
as to the discharge Of the prisoner on April "a.
Judge Batohford-The point is this; The traverse al
eges that the prisoner was discharged on April "a but
the proceedings in this were begun by warrant
issued on April g.
Mr. Brooke-Then there Is an in the traverse and
l will correct 1t.
Judge Woodruf-We assume that the purpose OF the
traverse is to raise questions of law upon the facts re-
cited In the return 10 the writ. ,,
Mr. Ia Costa-If understand the point; II Is TINS:
There prior 10 April o. an aodutta OF the prisoner
on previous charge under the first mandate; and on
Ino s9couI t he ta,en into account an all
T.sltro afglf npf-- N moi
Mr. seward-The FIRST prosecution was on two alleged
forged acceptances and the second prosecution Is Oh IL
Mr. Da Costa read replication to the traverse Of tho
Marsbas return to the eject that ne held mcdonnell
under the Commissioners legal commitment, ana that
| he had not been acquitted OF the charges no" maze
Judge WoodrufF-As understand It, all of the facts
and all Of the evidence TO which counsel can feer are
contained the return TO the Writs OF haDeas corpus
AM Mr. 81 B sroc that is so.
| Mr. Da COsta-I now propose 10 move 10 quasb the
writ cerorari the ground that the Court had no
authority to issue such writ IN eXtradltlo9 pr9cee1
authority the Executives warrant OF eXtradtlon had
eHded ~ so far al least as this case is concerned
| Judge WOOdrua-ThOse points can be considered In
| the general argument Of the question before us.
Mr. Brooke, after discussing at great length the law
Governing tradition continued The arrest OF
the prisoner under The second warrant was illegal IL
Is conceded that it served upon him when he was in
Lndowst Jail aud In the custody Of the Marshal. AT
| that time the Commissioner had judicial knowledge
Of tact that the proceedings under the first warrant
determined and he had therefore no legal
right hold mcdonnell by second warrant that he
! might obtain jurisdiction over him.
The rest OF Mr., BrOOkes argument upon the questions
Of law invOly ed substantially the the argu
ment made by him, and published IN full in The
! TRIBUNE, on the writ OF habeas corpus Issued in
this case by Judge Woodruff In regard 10 the evidence
before the Commissioner Mr. Brooke reiterated the ale
CATION the traverse that il not sufficient TO con
Wet Macdonald under the State law, and cOntended
that therefore not sufficient To bold him for extra
dition under the treaty between the United States and
England Judge Woodruff remarked that state laws or
STATE rights had nothing to do with that treaty, II being
purely national in its character. Mr. Brooke then in
sisted that the evidence insufficient TO convict even
In England, the prisoner of the charges made against
! him that 1t did not show probability that he was
guilty OF them. and that therefore he could not be
legally, held for eXtradltlon. Adjourned TIL lOs a. M
/ to-day.