The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1886-02-08

Il Al
the Court held that his client might be ex
tradited under their own code, independ-
emily of the treaty, then it could only be
done according to law. Our code provides
that a person can only be surrendered
upon the presentation of such evidence as
would satisfy the Court that crime had
been committed, and it must be such evil
dence as would be required were the crime
committed in this country But no such
evidence had been adduced There was
an indictment by the Grand Jury of San
Francisco, unaccompanied BY dispositions,
and the attested copy of bench warrant,
without seal, which made it void in San
Francisco and anywhere else This was
not evidence which could satisfy the Court
that crime had been committed. The
indictment was simply evidence that a
charge had been made against Mccarthy;
it was not evidence that crime had been
committed by him, or that he was refu-
gee from justice. Mr.. Whiting argued at
length upon the other points in his brief,
and submitted that his client could not be
| lawfully extradited.
| During his argument Justice Preston
asked Mr.. Whiting what the rule was in
cases where the Governor of New Zealand,
or of any Australian Colony, was asked to
| extradite fugitive from justice?
Mr.. Whiting quoted from the Imperial
! Extradition Act of 1870, which empowers
| Governors of British Colonies to extradite
| offenders when requested by countries
having extradi1ion treaties with the United
| Kingdom. In the Preller case, mentioned
| in the argument, the accused was detained
| at Auckland under a cable message from
! st. Louis to the United States Consul
there, until officers of the United States
arrived with proper extradition papers
from the Secretary of State at Washing
ton. The accused was then arraigned, and
| satisfactory evidence of the commission
of the crime of murder was given in open
| Court by witnesses sent from st. Louis,
upon which testimony he was surrendered
to the United States officers. That pro-
cess, which was the proper one, had not
been observed in this case.
The Attorney General made very able
argument in reply, in which he contended
that it was not material whether the requi-
sition for extradition came from the
Governor of the State of California
or from the Secretary of State at
Washington; the request addressed to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs of this KING
dom, under which these proceedings origi-
mated, had come from the United States
Minister Resident, who was the author
!; lied diplomatic representative of the
United States Government i'll this
country He contended that the
| ho oh fn
anv fugitive from Justice accused of crime
in foreign country. whether there was OIL
was not a treaty. 1t was within the dis
cretion of this country as a sovereign
Power to do this without reference to any
, treaty, and they were not bound by the
laws or precedents of any other country IL
such matter. Now, Mccarthy was accused
of the crime of ENLIGHTENMENT of public
funds. Under the laws of CalifOrni;
where the crime was committed, this was
felony The Penal Code of this Kingdom
defines ''crime" and ''felony" as synony
NOUS, wherefore by the Hawaiian Code
was entirely competent to surrender thu
accused. He was entitled to the protection
of orr laws and mora If IT. cnnld b.
held that it was not competent to extradit
4 fugitive from criminal justice from an,
part of the world, upon requisitiOn from
$ any country, even Samoa or other Soutl
aea Islands, upon good and satisfactor
2 evidence that crime had been committed
then it would be very bad state of thing
l for this Kingdom, which would soon
r crowded with most undesirable class c
t residents. And he maintained that the in
t dictment by the Grand Jury of San Fran
e cisco, attested by the Superior Court 0
r that city and county, accompanied by
: bench warrant of that Court, was as goo
and sufficient evidence of the commission
5 of a crime as could be produced. H
f argued also that California was known
\ be, and was sovereign State, and that
: was quite competent for its Governor
make the request he had done in this case
The moral effect of the surrender
e Mccarthy would be good. The KingdOT
of Hawaii could not afford to be accessor
: to the embezzlement of public funds by
D State officer of California or elsewhere.
;, After hearing argument the Court re
served it's decision, which will probably
: given tomorrow.