Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-07-04
SHOULD DYNkMITERS BE EXTRA
DITED?

been divided upon the question whether
dynamiters so called-are political
offenders. and as such are without the cate
CORY of eX.raditabe criminals. But it is
apparent that public opinion has latterly
been steadily settling down to the mega
tive Of the question. Judge 7. NJ. Cooley,
pre-eminent among iurists; President J. B.
Angel and George Ticknor Curtis, emf
nent publicists, each reasoning upon DIFF
ferent lines, in essays in the North liner
lcda RertcT, arrive at common concIu-
sion-that dynamiters are not entitled to
refuge Professor Angel points out that
the reason for the protection given to
political offenders by uninterested nations
is because OF the impossibility Of agree
ment as to the moral quality Of what is
charged upon a man as a political otiense.
An act criminal and infamous in our ma
ton may be meritorious in the eyes of
another. The dynamiter claims eXemp-
ton because his deeds have 4 political
aim But in all lands assassination is in
famous, even in open war. 1t is therefore,
incompatible with the safety of society
that asylum should be given assassins. In
the case of those who blow up public
buildings in England, no man of sense can
suppose that the acts Will have any such
political effect as the perpetrators profess
to desire. The political element in them
is too shadowy to lift the crimes TO unex-
traditable political dignity.
Mr.. Curtis holds that the political Of
fender must derive some kind Of authority
from regularly established revolutionary
or insurrectionary government in order to
claim the benefit of asylum. Even then
the act must be one recognizable by the
rules Of war But each country should
define by legislation the character Of crime
of which it expects other countries to take
cognizance, and the dynamite offense re-
quires exact and comprehensive legal
definition before extradition can be asked
for, because the country TO make
the surrender must act with some reference
to its own laws. As to aiders and abettors
here of dynamiters abroad, extra
dition is not the remedy What is needed
is legislation to define and punish this
auxiliary ofense. The claim that the new
and strange crime under consideration is
political oiiense is simply absurd. 1t isl per-
petrated secretly, at Il time when no war
exists, acts upon the innocent, and IS sim
ply assassination.
Judge Cooley points ont that q political
ofIense is against the sovereignty. 1t must
be in defense of, or an attempt to over
throw government unable 10 prevent a
revolution. Outside of this definition
man, ont Of malice, might strike down an
official, OF blow up 4 government building,
and excuse himself, and seek refuge under
the plea that he committed the act in the
hope Of beginning q revolution. Methods
and agencies of accomplishing the crime
are immaterial in all cases the offender
end in view. When the dynamiter acts as
such where there is no revolution in prog
ress, no war, his deed becomes an isolated
act Of destruction. The most he can say
is that he hoped to inspire terror and force
concessions in the direction Of popular lib
erty. Now whatever doctrine of that kind |
IS advanced against King or an En-
peror, must apply in the case of the Presi-
dent in a republic. So, if we refuse to ex-
tradite one who Stays an Emperor, we must
expect other countries to refuse to return |
to Us the assassin who kills our President |
If it is said that the dynamite crime is en-
ployed against intolerable tyranny, yet it
remains that it may be also aimed in the
interest of tyranny and against the scheme
of liberty. Assassination has more often
been employed TO riYet than to break