The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-05-09


the immunity from trial for other offences have been
celebrated since the date OF tho act OF lSfS At that
with Great Britain and with France neither OF which
contained the Limitation referred 20.
The terms Of the respective treaties alone define or
can limit the rights OF the contracting parties
The construction or the treaty between tho United
States and Great Britain by the two governments aud
their practice in ts enforcement for years were
In entire harmony. In each country surrendered fug
been tried for other offences than those
which they had been delivered the rule having
that where the criminal was reclaimed in good faith
and the proceeding Was not excuse prctence 70
bring HIM within the jurisdiction OF the court, II
no violation OF the treaty or OF good faith TO proceed
against him on other charges than the particular one
on which he had been surrendered. The Judicial de-
clsons OF both countries affirm this rule. II so
held OF State exlradtion by Judge Mel
in Williams Bacon 10 Wendell $50, and tho
same principle was laid down by the Court OF Appeals
Of New York In late OF Adriancc Lagrave.
who had been delivered up under the treaty
with France In United States Caldwell Is Blatch-
lord Cir c. Rp 1871 CALDWELL after extradition IRON
Canada FOR forgery 1871 indicted Tor bribing
officer, and the plea entered that tho prisoner
brought within the jurisdiction OF the upon
claree Of forgery, treaty, and that the Of
fence specified IN tho Indictment not mentioned IN
the treaty. A demurrer beng interposed the Court
decided the prisoner had bccn cxradod IN good faith.
charged with tho commission OF crime, and must be
tried.
charge Of robbery the prisoner was tried on assault
with intent to kill
In the case OF Hcbrunn, who extradited from
this country for forgery aud tried Great Britain Tor
larceny the facts by Solicitor General OF
Great Britain VINO had charge OF anu
who was examined before the late British Commas
soncr the cxtradon question, that the pris-
ouer being cx,radtcd Tor forgery, was acquitted and
thercupOn tried and convicted Tor larceny, Tor
which he could not have been surrendered, not being
enumerated in the list OF crimes mentioned in tho
treaty.
In Canada there is the same current OF authority.
In the OF Won 4. Arnam Upper Canada Reports
c. p 2ss) the prisoner surrendered by the
United states to Canada upon the charge of forgery,
and application made Tor release On ball. Oh the
ground that the offence was at most the obtaining or
NOR mn taI epS mt ~
Macauley, Chief Justice, said in denying the motion,
that he disposed to regard the offence forgery,
but even II the offence were only false prctences,
'aier being in custody, he is laule to be prosecuted
for any offence which the facts may support"
In Paxtons case 40 Lower Canada JuTst, PIP, IL,
352) the prisoner charged with utering forged
promissory note hc pleaded that he had been extra
dncd upon the charge OF forgery and could not DO
tried for tutoring forged Taper or Tor any other than tho
cxraditon offence The Court decided that the trial
should proceed Tho prisoner thereupon protested
against being called upon plead tn any other charge
than that for which he exradted but he tricd
found guilty and the conviction affirmed on appeal
In addition to the foregoing. Judge Benedict, IN his
opinion Lawrenccs case delivered within few days
past entirely comedies In these views, and the Solicit
tor General Of the United states in his opinion IN Law
rcnces case, dated July IL, 1875 reaches the samc
An examination OF the report Of the Select Committee
Extradition OF the House of Commons, which
1865 under whose superintendent the cxtradition law
OF 1870 framed. and which was composed OF some
Of the distinguished public of Great Britain,
among whom the solicitor General, Mr. Mill. MIR.
Forster, Sir Robert Collier and Mr.. Bonnere, shows
the law OF the United states the practice
regard to extradtion wore perfectly well understood
aud they distinctly referred to several
Mr.. Hammond, now Lord Hammond, for many years
Under Secretary OF Statc speaking OF Burieys case,
stated that as II was suggested that the prisoner,
who had been surrendered charge OF rob
berry, about 10 be tried for piracy tho matter had
been referred law officers OF the Crown and that IL
held that II the United States put him bona fdc
his trial Tor the which he exradited
1t would difficult TO question their right try him
for piracy any other offence OF which he might be
whether such offence was or was not grounu of
iftIn r nVN 10 n
admit in this country that If man is bona fde tried
Tor an offence for which he was given up there moth
ing TO prevent his being subsequently tried Tor
another offence either antcccdeny committed or not
(Answer l,05t)
Mr. Mulcns an eminent member OF the bar, who was
counsel in the Lawrence case IN reply to question Of
Sir Robert Collier, said that in his opinion, n surren-
dcrcd criminal ought to be tried for an offence other
than the extradition offence arising from the same
facts and Mr.. Forster Question ,2l4) considering
the proprcty Of the proposed stipulation that
should DO tried for offence other than the extradon
offence, sad:--
The Americans do not make that stipulation else
fence.
To which Mr. Mullens responded
MOI there is no stipulation that kind case
Mr.. Mill thereupon sad Question /, 2lG):-st AS IN
der IT. the treaty with America would not pre-
vent our trying man Tor different offence from that
for which he had been gwen up" To which Mr.. Null
replied :'s II would not; there Is stipulation
that he shall not be tried Tor any other offence" Then
follows question l,2l5:" Would you wish To extend
that state Of things To other countries ~ and the
ply, "wiih regard 10 America have found any
difficulty about H." &c.
so lar us can be ascertancd there was absolutely no
dissent any time from these To the law
practice under the treaty the only question seemed
TO be whether II wassxse To attempt to change the
Mr.. Clark IAN eminent British authority, in his
treatise on extradition says
1t Is quite clear that neither the treaty the
United States contains the provisions OF the extradon
OF 1870.
II would appear, therefore by the judicial decisions,
by the practice OF both governments, aud by the
derstanding OF the persons most lamliar with proceed
incs III snch cases and the most competent to judge
tha, where criminal has been IN good faith extra
dited for offence within the treaty. there agree
mcnt expressed or implied, that he may not also be
tired for another Hence oi which he charged,
although not an cxtradtion offence He is in fact I'm
accordance with the language OF the treaty. delivered
up To JUSTICE and IN The absence Of any limitation by
treaty. to Juscc generally. each independent state
being the judge OF It's OF justice
Surely Great Britain viii allow the Legislature of
another State To prescribe u limit the the
manner IA which justice Is be administered IN her
courts, and she will not expect tho United States
to be less tenacious oil It's Independence tins regard
Now for the first time SINCE the signing OF the treaty
Of lsi2 Great Britain the her right
TO dcmaui IRON the United States. as condition OF
the execution by Great Britain OF her engagement TO
surrender fugitive criminal charged with OF
stupcndous iorgeries stipulation, agreement not
provided for IN the treaty, bur asked the ground
of act OF Parliament passed eight years
after the treaty had force
Of tho rules conditions which should apply
arrangements Tor extradilion when made with foreign
State. This involves the question whether the
parties 10 treaty change and alter It's terms
construction or attach conditions 10 its execution
without the assent OF the othcrwhethcr OF the
Parliament OF Great Britain. passed in The year 1870,
change the spirit terms OF treaty with
the United States of nearly thirty years anterior
date. can attach new condition to be demanded Of
the United States before compliance by Her Macsty's
government with the OF the treaty they have
been shown to have been uniformly understood and
executed by both governments Tor the third OF
century.
As this government does not recognize any efficacy
In British statute alter modify to attach
conditions TO the eSccutory parts OF previously exist
ing treaty between the United States and Great
Britain do not ieel called upon TO examine partcu
larry the provisions OF the law Of ls5U but inasuch
Great Britain seeks IA impose the provisions OF that
upon The tnited states In the OF treaty
Of many years anterior date, do not ail observe
that while by the act Great Britain require
that surrendered fugitive shall be tried Ia the
country which demands his cxtradition Tor ANY
offence other than the cxtradition crnc' I'm
the singular) proved by the facts on which
the surrender Is grounded, she To herself
the right 10 try fugitive surrendered to her Tor