Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1883-07-12


which this surrender was demanded
and made in Canada. As citizens of,
and even as sojOurners, in Canada the
defendants were entitled to protection
4 under the laws of that country. The
law there would have carefully protect
ed them against unlawful seizure
4 They could not have been brought
from there except under favor of the
treaty The office of the treaty was
to grant license to the agent of our
government under which they might
lawfully be removed from Canada
and brought in this country for the
1 purpose named in the application for
the surrender. Something beyond a
mere application is necessary in order
To obtain a warrant of eXtraditiOn.-
The treaty provides, as assurance of
the good faith of the application, that
a hearing shall be awarded to the &C
cused, and upon the hearing such evil
dence of criminaliay must be adduced
as according to the law of the country,
in which the accused may be found,
would justify his apprehension and
commitment for trial if the crime had
been committed there. Such hearing
affords protection to the accused in
that it tends to guard against his being
dragged away upon wholly ground
less accusation. Whilst the. treaty
provides that the accused may be re-
moved for the purposes of trial in the
interest Of public justice, in the inter-
est OF the accused it secures to him
the benefit of a hearing in, and accor-
ding to the laws of the country under
whose flag he has taken refuge. IN
doubtedly the country granting extra
dition may complain in case of bad
faith; and why should not the accused
be heard, if in violation of the treaty
he is about to be put upon trial in
another country upon a charge as to
which no hearing was awarded him in
the country from which he was extra
dited. True, as between the Govern
ments, the question may be political
and not a judicial question, but as be-
tween the Government and the accus
ed who claim their rights, for the
protection of which provision has been
made by the treaty, are about to be
violated the question is surely judi
cial question; and as the treaty is a
part of the law of the land no court is
at liberty to ignore such question.
In lS43 the Parliament of Great
Britain passed an act for the purpose
of carrying the treaty into effect,
wherein it is provided 'That such per-
sons that should thereafter be extra
dited to the United States should be
delivered to such person or persons as
shall in the name of the United States
be authorized to receive the person so
committed and to convey him to the
United States to be tried for the crime
of which such person shall be accused"
Section 5272 of the act of Congress
of 1S4S reads as follows:
at shall be lawful for the Secretary
of State, under his hand and seal of
office, to order the person 50 committed
to be delivered to such person as shall
be authorized, in the name and on be
half of such foreign government, to be
tried for the crime Of sohich such per
son shall be so accused, and such per-
son shall be delivered up accordingly;
and it shall be lawful for the person
so authorized to hold such person in
custody, and take him to the territory
of such foreign government pursuant
to such treaty. If the person so dccus-
ed, shall escape out of any custody to
which he shall be committed, or to
which he shall be delivered it shall be
lawful to retake such person in the same
manner as any person accused of any
crime against the laws in force in that
part of the U. States, to which he shall so
escape, may be retaken on an escape"
The provision in the act of Parlia-
ment and that in the act OF Congress,
are substantially the same, and each
was doubtless suggested by the Ian
guage of the treaty.
Section 5275 of the act of Congress
of 1869 reads as follows:
whenever any person is delivered
by any foreign government to an agent
of the United States, for the purpose
of being brought within the United
States and tried for any crime of which
he is duly accused, the President shall
have power to take all necessary meas
ures for the transportation and safe
keeping fsuch accused person, and
for his security against lawless vio-
lence, until the final conclusion of his
trial for the crimes or offenses specified
in the warrant of eXtradition, and un-
til bis final discharge from custody or
Imprisonment for or on account of
such crimes or offenses, and for reas-
enable time thereafter, and may EN-
ploy such portion of the land or naval
forces of the United States, or of the
militia therof, as my be necessary for
the safe keeping and protection of the
accused"
To my mind the treaty contains an
implication that extradited criminals
are not to be subjected to jurisdic-
tion acquired through the agency of
the warrant of extradition, whilst un>
der restraint imposed through such
warrant, to be tried for any crime other
than those named in the warrant, and
such implication is of as much force as
the positive expression of such pro-
vision could be. The sense in which
each government understood the treaty,
as shown by the legislation of each, to
carry the same into effect is in har-
mony with the construction here given.
/ have concluded to direct that the
accused be remanded to the peniten-
tlary, and to order that no further pro
ceeding in these cases be had until
the determination OF their imprIsOn-
ment, and until reasonable time
thereafter.
Judgment accordingly.
o.Jy;lia dnriuO the mast five Years.