The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1873-07-23

WEDNESDAY,. =. ......JJLY52s, 1873.
Extradit ion. apa3
The refusal 81 the United States 5ovcrn..
,nent 70 surrender murderer to foreign
oyernuent. because the Attorney Genera
gives it Us his opinion that the surrender =
not authorized by the treaty existing be-.
tween ours and that government, when con-
trasted with the. opinion Of the Assistant
District Attorney of the United States in the
DANA cxtradition case, presents our country
in most ludicrous light as the champion OF
personal liberty. The telegram In another
column tells, why the Attorney General
thinks CARL yoar ought not to De sur a,.
rendered. Below are some Of the utterances
of Assistant District Attorney HARRINGTON,
of Washington city, who holds his appoint
ment from the Attorney. General, we believe,
in the DANA extradition case:
In regard 70 the mode and power of ar
rest. Dir. Harrington says that by the thirty
third section Of the act Of Congress, Sep
TENDER "a, 1889, 1t is enacted "that for any
offence against the United States the Often
der may, by any justice or Judge OF tbc
United States, or by any justice OF the peace
or other magistrate Of any oil the Cnitea
States where he may be found, agreeaoiy 70
the usual mode Of process against onenuers
i'm such State, and at the expense OF the
United States. be arrested and imprisoned,
or baiied, as the case may be, for trial before
such court as by this act has cognizance OF
the offence, He says there can remain
but one question, and that is whether
the words "before such court ,of
the United States as by this act has
copnizsnce of the offence restricts the
general words in which the power to arrest
is given. and confines IL only to cases that are
coenizable in the particular courts enumefa.
ted 10 the act Of September "a. 1853. Ii
there are any doubts upon the construction
of the statute, he thinks they would be re-
moved by the very clear and full oplnlon
given by Astorury.G General fancy, in which
he SAYS: 81 cannot think that there IS any
foundation for the doubt which has been
suggested. The power to arrest Tor any
offence against the United States is gwen IN
general terms, and the words which have
occasioned this doubt are not words OF re-
striction upon preceding words, and are OBJ
49,.
offence against the United States committed
in this district is an offence against the same
sovereignty as if committed in one OF the
States" sc.
Here Mr.. WILLIAMS refuses to surrender
murderer upon technical ground that had
been overrued by Judge BLATcHFoRD, OF
New York, and here Mr.. W1LLIAMs's tool de-
clares that man ought to be captured IN
New York and transferred to Washington,
and tried for.an offence against the United
States, though this man hud been guilty OF
no crime whatever against the United States.
He had charged ARTHUR r. SHEPHERD and
one Mr. Cooke with corruption ia office.
however; and these two officials being Radi-
Gals and minions of General GRANTS, it was
decided by the Assistant District Attorney,
rs stated above, that he could be lawfully
torn away from home and friends and by force
transported to Washington, and there tried
for an offence against the Government. The
impudence of this fellow HARRINGTON In pre-.
tending to quote Cbief-Justice TANEY in
favor of such violation Of personal liberty
leaves us in doubt as to whether he is more
knave or TOOL. Judge BLAroHFoRD's deci-
sion rendered HARRINGroN's attempt to COM
init great crime failure, but it does not by
any means excuse him, nor Mr.. WILLIAMS,
nor General GRANT. The people should see
to it that no more such persons get into Office
in this country. Their will to violate the
Constitution and to deprive Mr. DANA Of bis
liberty was baked, but they are none the
less guilty Of an inexcusable crime against
the laws, the Constitution, and the customs
of our country, and against citizen who
had the right to expect from these officials
protection instead of persecution. 5- Z
We must add a word concerning the New
York World. Day by day that journal
learns. In its last issue it shows that the
Federal law does not allow man to be
taken out of his own district for trial. This.
is great Improvement upon its first article
which endeayored to show that as the State
law of New York allowed libel suit to be
tried in the county where either party to 1t
resided, SO for a libel against a resident Of
Washington city man ought to be allowed
to be captured anywhere in the United States
and taken to the capital for trial!
The truth will reach the hearts Of the
northern people one of these days, we trust,
that in discarding the southern idea as to the
powers Of the Federal Government they
have surrendered all their rights and libcr.
ties to IN irresponsible central deSpotiSm. q"
's.-