The New York herald., 1874-11-22
ITALIAN BRIGANDAGE.

The case OF Angelo di Giacomo, who Is charged
before Commissioner Kenneth G. White with hav-
ing committed acts OF brigandage, and with
having been concerned in the alleged murder OF q
young man named Avigliano, near Naples, Italy,
In the year 1857. was resumed yesterday. The
accused 1t Is stated, was chased by the Italian
authorities for q considerable time, but without
success, and finally the prisoner turns up in this
city, where he is arrested under the warrant OF
Commissioner White to answer the accusations
above alluded to. The prisoner has un-
dergone several examinations before the Com
missioner. and at the last examination
the counsel for the prisoner Mr. T. C.
Bowen. took the point that inasmuch as the treaty
OF extradition between the United States and the
Kingdom OF Italy du not come into effect until
1868, the year alter the commission OF the alleged
crime, there was nothing whatever in existence TO
Justify the surrender OF the prisoner to the Italian
government. Mr. Coudert, counsel for the Itallan
government, took the opposite view OF the matter
and argued in an able manner that the treaty did
apply to the offence that, in fact, the treaty might
be regarded as having q retroactive ef1ect, and
that, this being 80, the Court had no
option but to surrender the prisoner
to the demanding Power. He further argued
that II the treaty of 1858 did not apply to the
case Of the prisoner, the treaty which had been
entered into between the United States and the
what remarkable that when giving nj s judgment
In the now famous and very remarkable case OF
Oari Vogt, Judge Blatch.ord, recounting the
various treaties OF extradllion now IN force be-
tween the United States and foreign countries, de-
ciared that the treaty with the Two SlcilIes was
no longer in existence as II was entirely super
eeded by the later treaty entered into between the
United states and Italy IN the year 1861 Upon the
points raised by counsel on both sides the Com
missioner, tor the purpose OF enabling them to
have 1t passed upon by Judge Blatchlord. decided
that the treaty OF 1865 dd apply the There
upon counsel Tor the prisoner, Mr.. Bowen, sHed out
awrit OF nabeas corpus bring the question before
the Court Tor determination. The writ was return
ahe yesterday, and when the case was called
the points he mad raised before the Commissioner
were well founded, anu that there was notning
whatever in the treaty to indicate that, under It's
provisions, a prisoner could be extradited for an
offence committed before the treaty itself came
into existence lie lurtner Claimed that the treaty
with the Two Sicilies, was wiped out OF existence
by the later treaty with the Kingdom or Italy IN
1865 as was held oy the Court when prOnOunclng
1ts decision in the case OF Carl Vogt.
Mr.. Coudert, counsel for the Italian government,
persons who, having been charged with the COM
mission OF crimes had sought an asylum Ia the
held that the language OF the treaty expressly
authorized extradtiion In cases OF crime commit
ted previous 10 the ratification OF the treaty where
the party came TO this country TO seek an asylum
IN It, or was found therein. The language or the
treaty embraced the crime charged. He argued
from the treaty recently made between the United
Ste ties and Belgium, that 1t was intended by tnat
treaty TO have no retractive enect except as
treaty with the Two Sicilles It was expressly
stated therein that 1t should nave no retroactive
effect; yet, when the Italian government came to
make the treaty or 1868 with the United States
that clause was omitted, and from this he (Mr.
COudertl inferred Jnat the intention was to make
II retroactive in It's effect The Italian treaty pro-
vided that person should be surrenaered for
political offences. He asked whether this was
not question for the political power TO de-
termne. Ii complained tnat the magistrate
had refused, under the mandate, 10 take evidence
OF the alleged criminality OF the prisoners but this
was only for the purpose OF bringing the question
before the Court. The power ol extradliion did
not arise from The treaty; tnat was power that
vested In the general government. Even II there
was no eXtradition treaty between the TWO gov
ornments, the moment the prisoner lanued on the
shores OF America with blood on his hands he had
no rights here, and he cond be surrendered to the
Italian governments 'for we.h said counsel 'al-
ways punish murderers.r He could not see the
the other side to the effect that 10 send the
accused back would be establishing
post tact0 law. But In sending the prisoner
back they would not be sending him back for
punishment, but for trial. He quoted from re.
cent French WORK to the effect that In extraditon
treaties they could take cOgDZance OF crimes
committed anterior to the date OF the ratification
OF the treaty.
Mr.. Bowen, in reply. contended that all treaties
President and Congress in the same manner as
the statute lsw of the country, and in making
such treaties they could not make any OF them IN
C0ntravention OF the constitution. He denied the
proposfion OF counsel on the other side that the
government could surrender criminal to justice
without the aid OF treaty.
Judge Blatchford took the papers and reserved