New-York tribune., 1876-08-05

| afterward, one office ccrtalDiy WOuiu nave ooeh
speedily vacated. But this was not to be: and
herein the public again obtains glimpsc of some I'M
due and secret influence this whole business. which
does appear the surface, but the existence OF
which was nlede clearly apparent in the peculiar
| circumstances attendant upon the demgnd and ex-
| tradition of Lawrence in the first instance. For
not only was the offending official continued IN
! office and i'll favor; not only there no with
drawa of the indictment Tor smuggling and discon-
uuance OF proceedings, but the State Depart
| ment itself, turning completely round, assumed q
position in direct opposition To tho Presdcnts
order and the AttorneyGenerafs letter, and so vr-
tually justified the lecalctgant NewY0Ik District
Attorney.
What this undue and apparently all potent lnfu-
ence is may not be easy to determine but the cir
cumstaBce that what may be called the police inter
es" Of the Treasury have been sufficiently potential
in the recent past to induce Secretary of the Treas
ury and two most prominent members of Congress
one a Senator and the other Representatve-to co.
operate with and indorse the schemes of Jayne or
Sanbon, unavodably suggests that 20 sibly these
interests may have again been able to compel
Interpretation of important foreign treaty Tor
the purpose OF again mucting set of alleged
revenue delinqucnts. At any rate, we now know
certainly that tho notorious b. G. Jayne, 10 whom
the Hon. II, l.. Dawes, the floor Of the House Of
Representatives, in May, 1874, applied the terms
"vile fostering, putrescent," has been engaged in
this case from the very first; that Benjamin f. Bnt-
Ter, who was counsel for Jayne and Sanbon in
cases which the House of Representatives declared
Infamous, is again counsel for jayne in tLis case;
and that Lawrence has recently been released from
Jail, according to statement in TIE NEw-YogK
TRIBUNE, "by the united efforts of Gen. Butler as
his cOsnscl, and b. G. Jayne late Special Agent OF
the Treasury, as his friend" =
THE CASE IN COURT.
Dropping now for the moment the thread Of tho
narrative, let us 60 back and what took place
in court, when the IT, S. District Attorney at New
York. in direct opposition to the order of the PreS-
dent and the instructions of the Attorney General,
arlaigned Lawrence in the U. s. District Court, be-
fore judge Benedict, for violation OF the revenue
laws of the United States for which he was not ex
tIaditcd The counsel Of Lawrence made answer
for him substantially that he not legally before
the court for any such offense, inasmuch as he
not arr0gned for tho ofcnse for which he lad been
extTadit,d, and that an eXtradlcd offender could
not he tried for an Olicnsc other than the for
which he was surrendered.
The C0urt however, did not propose to allow
itself 10 be troubled with any such nonsense, and
at once and imperously made answer that tie
question involved was no longer On open one that
il had been fllly decided long ago, and decided ad-
vcrsely to the demurrer. And then, apparently not
content with thus smmarily disllissing this ground
Of defense proceeded to further lay down tho law
to the effect that even if the decision adverse 20
the demurrer had not been made. the Court was not
precludcd from trying Lawrence for any oHencc- pre-
fcrrcj by proper officers against hun. in OYnfer
it said, " o1 acquire no ItJhis 6y Ggrd"iHg Jrstce
" No Iight' CcFHc 10 HeO0Gidcr BY fIt; bercld'Hsd ~
all inns and C-clprhcre liable 10 dJs,"- 10 the lao
Yycril,ad ie comes Jrithia ne reach Of rs ann"
There il also another incident worth noticing in
! f., sfal. Of
transmitted by cable to the London press by the
Ncw-York news agents. the Court, referring ~ tho
question OF irs right 10 Try L2Trencc foraa gtfcnsc
other than that tor which he was cAi#dlt L. - re-
ported rs saying: The court cqRRot regard ihe order
Or he Iregilca TO he ooRag, OF rkc ao'ice e dny
dopcliHcpf bc-ap the EEglish end AB,crioGR G0r0a-
mems to ihaf effect - and this algragc Lyr Derby,
IL, hi, dispatch Of April IL, 1875, quotes, as il ke
REGARDED, II as anthont3;yf e. IN th3 eAEaat;2In a. I
! House of Representatives extracts only are given
from the decision of Judge Benedict, AMI therefore
the public have not the opportnhtJ % jndsmg
! whether the language above referred 70 @aU winch
| The British Government evidently accepted
was not used, ds reported. The circumstance how
ever tn&t the state Department did hot transmit
10 Congress the entire dOc.GeAt is iat Sug-
gcstiyc and naturally pTgmp 10 ~ inquiry whether
Sir Fish ali not reg.rd { q" pubcas,ou OF certain
portions Of judge lcucdict's opinion ~ q matter
OF doubtful eX?Jdieucy and nc- C2lculatcd 10
strengthen the position Of tic Washington Cabinet
either before tine c0Ua,ry or the British Govern
Tgnt Bnt walvug this point an considering only
what JuGgc Bcncdc ct It'll sGy. wuat SOFT OF lIw and
what sort Of an opinion was mat to tIl3ate rom
"All treaties says the Constitution Of the United
States, made under The authority Cf tie United
States shall he the supreme law ct the Land :" the
prov N>ioDs uf which all courts and juges ere bound
To- obey--tny Federal law enacted prior 90 tho
treaty, and any STATE law enacted a2y time, 20 the
contrary Notwithstanding. Furthermore, there IS
tea ure Of International law letter defined and
Te,OgnZed than that tine Interpretation Oi Treaties -
moi matter intrISed 10 the courts and Judiciary,
bat rests exclusively IN the political dcpaI eAts Cf
Governments entering into the treaty; ARA the inter-
pretation Of this treaty OF lSt2. Judge Benedict
perfectly well knew at the tine o1 mahIng his de-
Csicn. was matter OF non-JCtcchvnt, ana under
consideration between tie two E9Ncnn?"nts, and
that pending dsa agreemcnt the whole almEsyra-
ton Ot the treaty had been suspended. Aud yet
Judge Benedict uahc- -!tatingly assuncs that under
treaty transferred from The state Department, has
become vested in him judlclay. and, with IA evil
dent CONSCIOUSNESS that from lls decision there eau
be no appeal, winds up :is opinion VIII the follow
iug sentence: II mag, HptfOic, ,CiUoW hesitation Je
deciTet hat tie c'am ~ tcJdi tHDil.g from Hldl for
siHrgJijHh mae Hdde - ,cith0at iJfEdG ron "a me
Iroatget lSl2.N Recurring 20 another l'rt VI L!s
opinion, one also cannot help lWdg!"m' how differ
ent she ot history woull hayo recI had Udgo
Benedict, at the time Martin Luth'r presented him
self with safe Cunauct' before the Diet at
Worms, stood at the elbow ol Charles Y. and IL
,tucted him that the future law ot the under
al r!rcum,,:ncts would be q" that "a offender
mains s!i times and everywhere liable 30 20 called
e. answer 90 tic law Tor his violations tAcIeyI pIo-
viltl Ae comes within lcach If It's ANA
PROCEEDINGS or THE BRITISH GOyrRNMENT.
Isit 10 I've wondered at that under the circum-
stances as above related, Great Britain should have
fix Ses i've; nay more, woU!l he not as the case
went ON, have been fairly warranted in charging
the Federal authorities with gross discourtesy in
allowing the matter to come before the courts at
all with a view of obtaining Judgment pending q
discussion between highest officials OF the two
countries, whether under fair construction of the
treaty any court proceedings admissible
And