New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-05-25

received Lawrence under the act of 1870 from Brit
i'm Government and tins can only De accompsned by
Southern District OF neither TO hold OF try Law
% upon any CHARGES other a9 s9se S
or has an opportunity OF returning TO her Mess 90
that nasmuch as Lawrence held in close conhne
ment upon charges other than those on winch ne was
to them fer the purpose Of thus obtaining jurisdicton
over him, to which he Is not justly subject your Excel
leney earnestly requested TO dispose of the questions
on his behalf presented, at as early day as may pe
possible so TO do.
This considerable comment among lawyers
and only decision thus far from IT. is said tending to
shake position assumed by Mr. stoughtOn is the
In the OF the United States against Richard B.
Caldwell Is Batchord, C. c. r., 49, 1t is claimed that
under this decision, Lawrence has standing which
legally enables him 70 ask the Executive TO suspend pro
ceedings upon the indictments charging him with Snug
Cling, for the that such request only come
from the British Government in the event Of its claiming
that would not be fairly dealt with Lawrence having
been surrendered charge OF forgery should be tried
for smuggling In the referred to- the accused was
indicted for bribng United States officer He pleaded
that he had been brought within the jurisdiction OF the
Court on charge Of forgery, under an extraditon
treaty and that the crime Of bribery not embraced
m the treaty Noah Davis, who then United States
DistrctAttorney demurred to the plea In sustaining
the demurrer and deciding that the plea was bad Judge
Benedict said, among other things:
The question is raised whether the facts set forth in
the plea are sufficient GUST this Court Of jurisdiction to
try the defendant for oense otherwise concluded to
he within It's cognzance On the part OF the defense,
lance is placed sundry cases IN the tribunals OF
this state which furnish it is claimed support the
proposition of the defense that this Cont has jurisdiction
Of the person Of the prisoner for single purpose only
namely his trial for the for which he was extra
ited The cases referred TO are civil cases. wherein the
OF the warrants OF arrest set aside by the
Court motion. because appeared that the planuis
the actions had resoed TO fraud tn procure the pres
OF the defendants within the territorial jurisdiction
Of the Court in order that he might cause them to De ar
rested. Such do not furnish rule applicable IN
criminal prosecutions nor do find any case where
of the people has been set aside because OF de-
ce pracced TO bring the accused within the reach OF the
warrant
But II the rule applicable in criminal prose
cutions and in civil actions. and II the question here
motion to set aside the arrest instead Of on
plea to the jurisdiction am of the opinion that the re-
Lief could not be granted ior the reason th te person
Of the prisoner Is not within the jurisdiction OF the
United States by virtue Of warrant issued ot OF tins
Jurisdiction Of the United States by virtue Of warrant
of the Executive Of forggn government, upon me
Government of the United States; and while
abnse of extraditiDn proceedings, and want OF good
good cause of complaint between the two Governments
such complaints do form proper subject Of nvesi
mimi regret that thcv should have been permitted
arise. To hold otherwise would. in ease Ike the
the Government ON trial for lis dealings with foreign
power. Whether eytradted in good faith or
not the prisoner in point of fact, Is within the rlsdlc
ton Of the Court charged with crime therein com
mitted; and an at loss for even plausible reason
a
the Court is without jurisdiction to try him. The qcs-
ton appears TO TO be not one OF jurisdiction OF the
Court but rather of privilege from arrest and cannot
say that the fact that the defendant brought within
the jurisdiction by IF warrant Of extraditon for
the forgery affords INN legal exemption from
prosecution for other crimes by him committed
may add that the Of Hebron, which, 20 far as
know, not rypOr;ed. probably affords precedent for
the action OF the Government III the present case. He'll
bronn delivered by the Government OF the United
States the Government of Great Britain. upon charge
forgery When the facts O of which the charge arose
proved before the Commissioner the ground taken
in behalf that the committed was not IOf-
gerry but embezZement. The Commissioner held other
wise the prisoner eXtradlted but. upon his ar
rival Great Britain, he there indicted and con-
victed OF ENLIGHTENMENT, upon the facts which had
claimed before the commissioner to show forgery
presented. therefore the point now taken here
whether taken upon the TRIAL III
Britain do know. DO not therefore. refer 10 the
authority, but simply notice 1t DIS, perhaps
precedent.