New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-06-12
FIGHTS OF LAURENCE. THE ALLEGED
SMUGGLER.

ANSWER OF =. W. sToUGnToS To THE ARGUMENT
OF THE OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES AUTHORITIES
CITED BY MR.. BLISS DECLARED UNSATISFACTORY
ANALYSIS OF DECISIONS IN OTHER CAsES-ThE
TRIAL OF LAWRENCE FOR ANY CRIME THAN
THAT FOR WHICH HE WAS ExrRADiIRD DE-
CLARED ILLEGAL AND IN BAD FAITH.
Charles l.. Lawrence, who is jointly indicted
with Deputy Collector Col. Robert Des AnSes, and
Gustave W. Ball for smuggling silks through the
Appraisers Office at differentiation. was eI
tradited from England on the charge OF having
forged the name Of +. L. Blanding to al
importers bond, and an affidavit known as an
owners oath Of entry. When Lawrence reached this
city United States District Attorney Bliss proposed 10
try him for smuggling claiming that person couid
be legally tried for offense other than that
for which he was extradited. f. W. stoughton.
OF counsel for Lawrence objected to such course and
made an argument against it before the President in
Washington.
The President referred the to Attorney General
Pcrrepont he had, short time previous to his
appointment acted counsel for Lawrence he declined
to have anything to do with It, and turned 1t over 10
Solicitor General Phillips Mr.. Bliss then sent Mr.
Phillips a printed reply to Mr. stoughtcr's argu-
ment This was also published in THE TRIBUNE,
and in IL Mr. Bliss claimed that the law was against the
position taken by Mr. stOughton, and that decent
good faith would be violated should Lawrence be
tried for smuggling. instead OF for forgery. mr.
stoughton has prepared argument in answer to MI
Bliss which will he submitted to the Solicitor
General. The following are the main points Of it
From Mr. Blisss reply Ia first argument ia this mat
ter appears that warrant OF extradtion WIS, IN pG-
suance Of law, issued by the British Secretary O State
based upon the forgery of bond and affidavit" IL viii
not be hereafter questioned Therefore, hat upon ts
mem Ealing TO negative or weaken the force Of the
presumption we invoke IT must staid until overthrowh
IA shield and protection 10 Lawrence.
It's. however, suggested in the argument that II the
British officers surrender prisoner In violation OF act OF
which may be tried such act cannot be- set up here To
limit the crimes which he may be held and tried Bat
N Government should under such an act, claim ana
receive property be- held i'll trust according ts pro
visions and delivered to certain persons ul"n the lap
pening OF contingency though not bound - the Law c
Great Britain as SUCH our Government would nevcrihe
less he bound to execute the trust which, under such Law
il had claimed and accepted.
II is sid chat an listing treaty obligation could not be
changed by mere act of Parliament ami therefore that
the ht Of $50 wa. declared not TO Interfere win exs
Ing treaties Neither OF these propositions can he main
tancd although ii it otherwise. they would not m
the least advance the argument of The District Attorney
IL has been held by the national courts OF inns
country be- rSan .ai o%r the psae Of cSss
and IL will not be denied by those acquainted
made operative hut by Of Parliament. Moreover, II
l. expressly declared that either arty to the treaty q"
The question presented is. not whether the accused
person plead the objection he here nterpo~e in bar
In court OF Justice. but the inquiry Is FIRST uas ihis Gov
eminent actually or nlpedy pledged lis iah that Law
renee shall be held and tried only for the care on wcn
he surrencercd and second II such pledge bias been
made. will this Government violate i'll our Govornmen
Is solving these stlOns
may have decided on the subject in where an ar
raigned person has pleaded In bar that the Government
putting him trial had obtained him Oh pledge Not 80
to do. So
Courts might decline TO hod such plea valid when
they would not hesitate 10 declare, Chicf-Justce
Church did in Adranco agt LagTaNe, clted by the DIS
tct-Atorney, that he regarded II as eminenty jusi as
"A principle deain the accused for any act criminal
or civil committed prior to tue eXtradltiOn except
specified In the proceedings and In thai case
which WIS civil merely. and not involving the rues-
ton raised here the Court held that although parties
concerned in extradtng person for the purpose OF
ARE ting him civil process would bc guilty of
trick device which could not lie permitted To succeed
Court that this rule does apply 10 persons not
concerned IN the trick device by which the
party WAS brought within the Jurisdiction oi the
Court - and Ii was therefore leld-reyersng To That
extent the Judgment Of the Court below that a. the
plaintiffs thus concerned the defendahto could
be held on writs Issued at their suit; expressing
however disapprobaton Of such rule. ana an IN
timaton that the question holding him to that ex
tent was political and that his right 10 entire cx
emption prosecution ought 10 be secured through
interference from the Government.
To q uniform rule on this subject, and one In
harmony with the purpose OF all extration treaties
which that person claimed may be surrendered and
brought u Justice for crimes which his surrender
Is grounded and for those onlythe british Parliament
In $685. formed very able commission 10 consider the
matter and report and greatly aided BY the abos OF
that able magistrate Sir Thomas Henry before whom the
proceedings held In ths OF Lawrence the CON-
mission framed the Act Of 1870 which adopted It's a
tbOrp while intending that In no case should person
be for trial except for the oousc proven