New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-06-18
THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT THE TRIAL OF
LAWRENCE.

pypry oP ptsTRIcT-ArroRNHY BLISS TO TIE ARGU
MENT or ME. sroUGnToN-rHE RIGHT TO TRY
THE ALLEGED sMUGGIEE FOR OTHER THAN THE
CRIME FOR WHICH HE WAS EXrRADIIED Ar
FIgMED.
United States District Attorney Bliss has pre-
cared for the solicitor encral reply to Mr. stougtons
Last argument against trial of Charles L. Lawrence
for smuggling. Lawrence having been extradited Tor
forgery The following the main points OF the reply
Tn tbe entire 70 pages Of Mr. soughtons last argument
Respecting this matter very few If any statements are
denied. absolutely as IL seems 10 NE,
disproyed Mother is any criminal case cited IN which
:" are dispersed Of by the cavalier remark that These
feeble aud unsatisfactory authorities and are opposed 20
question AT issue at least in two of them. directly pre-
scented. carefully argued and deliberately decideai 40
whom are they unsatisfactory, except 10 crlHi1als
seeking to escape punishment Where are the judicial
o9f'I lVs failed to ind any in which the point
was directly at issue Tho nearest apttroa t .hs
o"pion 10 ,,bsraly quoted 10y Mr. stoughton was.
he himself says reversed appeal He tries 10 aVolu
bers TO forget that it DO admitted that an eXtraded
criminal may be prosecuted by any one on charge az
argmcn built up by him upon his labored statement OF
possible Inconvenience and breach OF lai1h S 10 Tue
Mr. stoughton seeks to throw doubt upon the French
French Minister of Justice IN 1871. He says that Mr.
Clarke. in his work on EStradton states WIN n, e
that the French Courts have settled down on the
view that a may he fried for crimes oiher than
those which he was extradlte anu Una. ~ uos 80
arrived in Bowler case on the satisfactory proof
I"n would not examine Mr. f1arkes book AS to the
hesitaton Mr. Carke's language - as follows p ioSl
"sinoe the edition OF this work was published three
very important cases before the French Cours
They fully discussed and reported ana tRe non
regard the respective functions 81 the execnne an1
ie then roes on to anote decided cases and dispatch
Of the French Minister or Justice subsequent 10 'hat
quoted by Mr. 5touglon. and adds tp l1il Inc result
Of thc cases is that there nothing the French law to
prevent courts from try Ing prisoner Tor crimes ore
Minister Of Justice may interfere and redelyer me ac
cused the state which has surrendered hn II ne Is
acquitted OF the offeDse for which he Was gwen up; Dut
tIis inierposition political. not judicial act, ana
cannot DO compelled by any process known TO french
point out these things TO you hut should not have
r~meot were n not for matters. Mr. Slough
ton insists that he safely rest his case on tne pre-
SUMPTION that Gen. schenck agreed that Lawrence
should tried only single charge There Is Ger
tainy presumption enough in criminal underiaKinS
through his counsel to set hinsei, UP as tne % mo- %
a country whose allegiance he has renounced out tnat
h.ry in fawrepces favor point OF fact have the
written authority OF the secretary Oh ote ior saying
appicable 10 the case Lawrence, and has
no knowledge of any such arrangement apr, Irum
tbi, il seems that il lAwrnce's eounsei seeks e
benefit OF an arrangement he ought to be called upon 70
show that made. III. however you thnh iAeLe
patch Gen schenck will quickly settle the matter NJ,
With one suggestion leave the subject Mr.
soughon claims that Lawrence can only be tlied on Tue
single forging the name OF blahdihg. MAY ho
ao1r ihe, pers0ns as TO whom evidence produced
before Che British magistrate Must the tria be FOR Tor
gerry simply May he not he tried for conspiracy 10
efrd te United States and the forging OF the maine 81
RlandIng alleged the overt act under tllat con.
spiracy May not civil action he now commenced
against him by service of papers upon him In behalf
OF the tinted states OF any private person
In closing permit me to suggest that IL seems 10 me .e
law and the common sense OF the question nyolxod u
simply this The nation receiving an eAtIaded criminal
must act good faith that such good faith II shown II
the extraditcd criminal bona tide placed on trial for
the Ofensc which he extraditcd that the gov
eTnmcpt OF the nation which delivered up the fugitive
thinks at any That the proceeding not i'll good
faith IL can and the question then becomes
.ne for diplomatic adjustment; but being question be-
tween SUCH the criminal has no rlght 10
he heard in the matter certainly not where he Is not
CITIZEN of the extrdtns country but OF the country
which receives him.