The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-03-29
ExtraditfOn Cases--Judge Benedict's
DeciHion.


Many recent events have given occasion
to regret the insufficiency of our treaties for
the extradition of criminals. With several
countries of Europe we have no such treaties,
and these, by the facilities of steam COM
munication, become the easy harbors of
whole classes of men who, for the sake of
example, should pass some years breaking
stone in our prison yards. With England
our treaty is entirely inadequate, and as a
great extent of territory subject TO English
law is contiguous to our border, this is for
any criminal who can get twelve hours
notice, just as if we had no laws except for
the punishment of the seven crimes named
in the treaty of 1912. But instead of having
the extradition laws extended to other cate
gories of crime we are likely to have them re-
stricted. Instead of improvement in this
point of the administration of justice we
seem in fair way to lose altogether the bene-
fits of the treaty actually in existence for the
mutual surrender of criminals by our own
and the British government Judge Bene-
diets decision, rendered yesterday on
the plea against jurisdiction in the
case of Lawrence, seems likely to so
far strengthen the case of Winslow
in England that we may contemplate as i'm
minent the consequences that no criminal
will hereafter be surrendered to us by Eng
land until new treaty can be made. 1t is
argued on behalf of Lawrence that he must be
tried for forgery, and for forgery only, as that
is the crime he was charged with in the pro-
ceedings on which he was surrendered by the
British government, and they deny the juris-
diction of the Court as to any other offence. In
fact, their position is, that except for the one
offence for which he was delivered, this man
is, in the eye of the law, in the same position
as he would be if he were physically in Eng
land, without any treaty for his surrender
But the Judge denies the validity of this
view and holds that the Court cannot go be-
hind the possession of the man, and, having
him in its hands, may try him for any
offence. AS this is declared to be the law by
q competent authority it must, we suppose,
be accepted; but there seems room to believe
point is in very unsatisfactory condition.
But the law, as declared, seems to us to rest
on some unsound reasoning. The Judge
says that the treaty has mo provision to
protect the criminal from prosecution for
other offences" than those for which extradi-
ton is agreed upon. But what, then, is the
meaning of the specification of a certain
number of offences in the treaty? Does not
the exclusion of all other offences protect"
the persons who may have committed them
and was it not the intention of the parties to
the treaties to SO protect" criminals-at least
from surrender, and presumably from trial
on other charges than those in the treaty
1t is said by the Judge that criminal ac-
quires no rights "by defrauding Justice
that is, by escaping from the country. But
this is phrase, and a phrase that involves
a gross blunder. The criminal who ''de-
frauds justice" by escaping to England ac-
quires thereby the right of asylum under
the laws of that country, and is protected
from our justice by the whole power of Eng
land, except in so far as Englands power is
waived in our favor by the explicit terms of
the Extradition Treaty. But if the Judges
position is sound in the law then the law is
so framed as to secure the conviction of one
criminal at a very serious expense to justice,
for the difficult subject of extradition will
be greatly complicated by this judgment.