Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1883-07-12
LEGAL ESCAPE OF VAN
DERPOOL AND JONES'.
Opinion by Judge Jos. g. Hance

County, Ohio Indictment for Forgery
This case came up on motion to the
jurisdiction of the court and upon q
plea in abatement to the indictment,
both pleas being substantially in rela
tion to the authority Of the Court to
try them in this county. These men,
Gilbert Vanderpool and Edwin f Jones,
Who claim to be residents and citizens
Of Toronto, were extralited from the
Dominion of Canada, upon a charge
of forgery committed in Butler coun-
ty, Ohio. After this extradition, they
were indicted in Belmont County, for a
similar otfense. They we're found guilty
in Butler Countyofthe offense for which
they were extradited and sentenced to
the Ohio Penitentiary for one year
each; and whilst serving that sentence,
we're brought to Belmont County to be
tried upon the indictments found here
against them. The question then
arose whether under the treaty be-
tween the United States and Great
Britain, they could be tried for any
other offense than the one upon which
they were extradited. This question
arose upon the pleas to the jurisdiction.
Hon Jos G Hance, one of the Judges
of the Sth Judicial District of Ohio,
having heard the arguments, dispose ed
of these cases concisely as follows.
He said: "From 1907 until 1912, no
extradition treaty obtained between
the United States and Great Britain.
During that period a diversity of
opinion existed in this country as to
whether the law of nations, irrespec-
pective of treaty stipulations, imposed
the duty of surrendering upon due
requisition persons charged with the
commission of high crimes in another
country, or whether the right to de-
mand, and the duty to surrender, OBJ,
tanned solely by virtue of provision
made by treaty.
In the case Of Washburn heard in
the State of New York before Chan
cellor Kent in 1919, it was held that
the right to demand was given and the
duty to surrender was imposed by the
law of nations. Twenty years later IN
the case Of Holmes, which was con-
sidered by the Governor and Supreme
Court OF Vermont, it was held that the
State had no authority to surrender
This latter case attained notoriety,
having been referred to the President
of the United States, who declined se
act, through an alleged want of power,
having been twice considered by the
Governor of Vermont and twice by the
Supreme Court of that State with
varying results, and having been car
ried 20 the Supreme Court of the Uni
ted States, which declined to act for
want of jurisdiction. August 9th,
1912, treaty was framed between the
United States and Great Britain, the
section relating to extradition is as
follows:
at is agreed that the United States
and Hel Britannia Majesty shall, upon
mutual acquisitions by them or their
Ministers, officers, or authorities, re-
spectively made deliver up to justice
all persons who, being charged with
the crime of murder, or assault with
intent to commit murder, or piracy, or
arson, or robbery, or forgery, or the
utterance of forged. paper, committed
within the jurisdiction OF either, shall
seek an asylum or shall be found with
in the territories of the other: Pro-
vided, that this shall only be done
upon such evidence of criminalty as,
according to the laws of the place
where the fugitive or person so charged
shall be found, would justify his ap-
prehension and commitment for trial
if the crime or offence had been there
committed; and the respective judges
and other magistrates of the two Gov
ernments shall have power, jurisdic-
tiOn, and authority, upon complaint
made under oath, to issue war
rant for the apprehension of the
fugitive or person so charged, that
he may be brought before such judges
or other magistrates, respectively, to
the end that the evidence of criminality
may be heard and considered; and if,
on such hearing, the evidence be deem
ed sufficient to sustain the charge, 1t
shall be the duty of the examining
judge or magistrate to certify the same
to the proper executive authority, that
warrant may issue for the surrender
of such fugitive. The expense of such
apprehension and delivery shall be
borne and betrayed by the party who
makes the Iequisition and receives the
fugitive"
Under favor Of this treaty the de-
PENDANTS were surrendered by the au-
thorities of Canada to answer a charge
Of forgery alleged to have been COM
mitted by them in Butler County, Ohio.
By virtue of warrant of extradition
they were taken to Butler County where
they were convicted and sentenced to
be imprisoned in the -Penltentiary of
this State, and the term of their i'm,
prisonment has not yet expired. BY
their plea and motion they object to
the jurisdiction of this Court, insisting
that being citizens and residents of
Canada, and having been by authority
of law brought from there for specific
purpose, Jurisdiction over their per-
sons can be acquired only through ex
tradition proceedings, winch has not
been had with reference to the charge
pending against them here. 1t being
now acknowledged that the matter of
extradition depends solely upon treaty
stipulations, a solution of the ques-
tion here presented must be found In
the treaty. The objection of the de-
PENDANTS to the jurisdiction of the
Court contemplates that according to
the true intent and meaning of the
contracting parties as expressed in the
treaty, they having been surrendered
in Canada, and brought to this coun