The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-03-29

"
United States Circuit Court, yesterday, by Messrs.
Field Deyo, concludes by asking that the previous
adjudication oil bankruptcy OF DEFENDANTS DC adJuaeed
void that the Injunction issued heretofore he vacated; ;
that leave be granted TO examine the bankrups that
plaintiffs be allowed TO proceed and exhaust their
remedy ut law on their Judgments and such other or
further relief as TO the Court shall seem just.
THE LAWRENCE EXTRACTION CASE.
Charles L. Lawrence, the alleged Custom House de-
faulter, who some time ago fled 10 Europe and
subsequently, returned to the United States under the
Exraditon Treaty, has through his counsel, set up
plea against the jurisdiction o. the courts TO try him
for any offence other than the which he
extradted Decision on the case was yesterday filed
in the United states Circuit Court. Judge Benedict,
before whom argument had, after stating that the
indictment for forgery, and giving synopsis of the
vouminous pleadings aud 10 tho facts up in the
plea TO the jurisdiction, gives at length his views and
rulings in the case, the following being eptome of
mis- opinion
In disposing OF the question argued before first
notice the position taken, bat all extradon proce d.
ngs by Their nature secure to the person surrender red
immunity from prosecution for any offence other than
the upon which the surrender IS made. The qucs
ton was decided IA the Caldwell case and has been
sustained by the Court OF Appeals of this In the
OF Adriance VS.. Lagrange, civil case. Thus It
Will be that offender against the justice OF his
country acquire no rights by dcirauding that JUS
tice, aud rights accrue TO the offender by fight
He remains at all times and everywhere liable TO be
OF its arm. The stand taken Tor tie prisoner in this
case is that immunity TO HIM by the Treaty of
1912, under which his surrender was made law Uind-
ing upon the OF the United States Bur there is
language In that treaty which can be supposed
10 confer the immunity here claimed. The language
OF the treaty that the offender shall be delivered
up TO justice, importing that the delivery Is Tor the
purpose OF public justice without qualification. The
act of Congress OF lS4S expressly limited to cases of
"lawcss violence - but il assumes as we'll that the
offender shall be tried for the offence upon which his
surrender is asked and does not protect hm from trial
fpro fhor nffa In nI kletnp
indicating intention 10 protect from prosecution
for other ofences IN statute having no other object
than the protection OF exradton offenders sufficient
to deprive OF all iorce the suggestion That the act OF
1915 gives TO the treaty of lS42 the construction
tended Tor by the accused The provision OF the act of
lS4S within the broad provision ofthe treaty OF 1872
but does not restrict H. and If intended 10 act 1t
would have been plainly expressed II would be
more difficult even TO find support for the
defence IN the provisions OF the British
EXtradton act of 1870 The Court takes the further
ground without action the part OF the treaty
making power OF the United States the Parliament OF
England could not by IT'S statute passed twenty eight
years after the treaty OF 1872 engrat upon that treaty
aprovislon OF immunity not found IN the treaty itself
But here the question rs not executive, but judicial
is whether the British act OF 1870 by of
its subject mater becomes law Of the United States
and thereby affords legislative construction OF this
treaty bindng upon the courts OF the United States
But the British act of 1870 has no effect in England to
limit the operation Of the treaty OF 1872 declared by
decision OF the Court OF Queens Bench. No such
protection or immunity as is claimed here Is Afforded
Judge Benedict cited the OF Hulbourne, sur
rendered by the United States upon the request OF tho
English authorities, and who tried for offence
not provided for IN the treaty without interference
the part of the Executive there and without complaint
from the governm here. There remains to be con
sdered that portion OF the defence based upon the
order of the President and the direction Of the Attorney
General, but these a set forth IN the plea have no
legal effect TO enlarge the Jurisdiction of the
courts confirmed by law The courts IN determining
the extent OF their Jurisdiction look to the law and
within that iursd ction they absolutely free from
the control OF any other department OF the govern
mcnL The correspondence between the President and
Attorney General is all irrelevant and outside the case
With regard to the position taken IN behalf OF the de.
fcndaDt-that an express agreement made between
the government OF the lnted states and that Of Great
Britain tina, the accused should not, until had an
opportunity OF returning TO Her NaJcsy's dominons,
be detained tried in the United states Tor any OIL
fence committed prior to his surrender other than
the crime OF forging and uttcrng the bond and alh-
davlt which his surrender was claimcd-this is
based upon a rule applied in civil cases where a de-
PENDANT has been invcgled within reach
OF the process OF the courts. but this
ruo has Application in criminal cases
Tie duty OF the courts rs stated by the Court
OF KINGS Bench. (Scotts easel scott was indicted in
England Tor perjury and arrested IN Brussels with
eNtradiilOn. and application the Brit
ish Ambassador declined to interfere and Scott was
carried to London Chief justice Icnterdcn ruled that
the cannot inquire into the circumstances under
winch the offender within It's iuris iiction. These
words. Judge Benedict said, express the opinion of
this Court. different rule seriously cmbarrass
the nstration OF the criminal law, and cannot be
permitted obtain here until has received tho sane
ton Of a controlling authority The plea TO the iurs-
dictIon and the other plcadngs arc therefore, set
aside, with leave 10 the defendant TO plead anew 10 the
charges