New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-05-21

what he did state to the nesting TO l7th % July
the Executive Committee SURPRISED at toe iarSp
cannot see how he could place himself ss 10 ne en-
trapped by giving TO The Rank OF Commerce drait o,
on forged resolution g01iensup by himself 49,,
The conduct OF GOi after tue meeting OF the Z4tn OF
minutes jay i because the resolution did not show
that he had intended 10 cheat or defrsnd tho comp.ny
with forgery before his Nor did the cOhuhc. VI
any o, tic Executive Committee months afer
the Path of september indicate that ac resolution was
forgery. -,
NJ Li,,ssf at the eIrrnse OF the company; but the
adopted by the company Immediately subsequent
70 s sc a. a. sreesr and after
ward eecting him one Of the Executive Committee, al
tend to that they did then consider the .esoln
tou forgery for they knew as much about the cnarao
ter OF the act then - they iid In APRIL ISIS when az
rector Dumesni Inde complaint agaist him before the
police magistrate
Il is unnecessary to the inquiry further There
tco many susp,lCus facts and Circumstances sur
rounding this discuss the OF forgery
against M Gof wlen II 10 evident that ne aa NOT ~
1877, to September o. 1879 that he offered the assign
eos OF the Canada Agricultural Insurance Company
whio Mr.. Ross in vestigans the books OF the com
psny, 70 abrae all claims against him and enter mo
same that after arrest by the police magistrate for
forgery and other Offences he gave nominal ball 10 sp
becoming ruined ananciaT as he states he the oath
Of September 1875 publicly departs from Monsrea ,or
TO Ross and others within months after his depart
No effort has been made from that time until now TO
extrade him for the offence OF forgery. noiwtn
standing he has advertised himself and his place OF Dus
from time to time in Canadian newspapers.
This is no Iechical forgery nor am 10 hold the ac-
oused for eXTadon simply because the evidence or the
prosecution IN and Of itself makes out probable cause
Tie defence in and ofse nulhes the charge oforgery
The intent 20 defraud wanting 10 support this charge
Tie act of August s. 1882 relating 10 extradton pro
eeedines. enables the alleged fugitive from Justice 70
have tho benefit OF defence to produce witnesses ana
TO cOnteiJ in Judicial the charge made against hin
by the demanding Government
Looking at the evidence in this case with view TO
conform TO the practice established In extrsdion pro-
ceedngs conscious OF the fact that the complainant
the Government OF Great Britain that the question OF
good faith part IN asking for the extradlton OF
this not 10 be considered by me as examining
magisrae scOus. too. that the question OF lsches
the part OF the demanding Government Ia no part OF
the inquiry here nevertheless am constrained III the
discharge OF duty 10 IN the light OF reason ana
law conduct and good faith of the witnesses VINO are
the parties n having the accused extrsdlted
on whom the Canadian Government rely 10 sustain
charge OF forgery 10 order that may contrast ana
weigh the testimony the part of the prosecution wheh
COuct with thai o. the defence and roach the truth
s nearly az dslnerested mind can, in sitting evidence
The accused Is entitled 10 be discharged. and so
order JOHN 4. OSBORN,
United States Commissioner