Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1886-12-10
EXTRADIrION.
Opinions Gwen bv Justices Miller and
Gray Upon the subject.

/ WASHINGTON, Dec. ..
! The following is an abstract OF the opinion
delivered by Justice Miller in the Unir, A
/ States Supreme court on Monday last, in the
extradition case of the United States sgainst
VIM. Rsnscher. After statement of the
/ facts in the case and a citation of questions
certified bv the court below, Juslise Miller
reviews carefully the history of extradnion
procet dings IN this and other countries and
discusses the questions which have &risen in
connection Herewith. He then takes up the
specific treaty which is to be construed in
this case, namely. the treaty OF 1912 between
the Uni.ed States aud Great Britain, which
is declared TO be the supreme law of this
land
Tie notes the prevalent dictum that political
otfenses should not be extraditable and saws
1T Is therefore very clear this treaty did not
intend 10 depart in this respect from the re
cognlZed public law which had prevailed il
the absence of treaties, and il was not intend
ed that this treaty should be used tor any
other purpose than 10 secure trials of persons
extradited for one of tn. offences enumerated
in the treaty. Thls is not only apparent from
the general principle that the specie en l.
merstIon of certain matters aud things i'm
plies the exclusion of all others. but the en-.
tire face of the treaty, including these pro.
SCsSSe uN WHICH IL Is 10 DS carried into elect,
confirms this view of the subject.
Justice Miller quotes acts of Congres,
made IN pursuance of the treaty, as confirm
in9 this view and cnnclu les that good faith
requires that ex'rad.led persons be tried on
no charge save that m ntioned in the demand
upon the asvIum government
Justice Gray read a concurring opinion
based upon the acts of Congress referred t.
by Justice Miller. He adds upon the broad
er question whether, Independently of an,
act OF Congress, and ID the absence of au,
affirmative restriction in the treaty, a m,u
surrendered for one crime should he tried for
another, express no opinion, because not
sailslv d that this is a question of law, within
the cognlz tnce of Judicial tribunal as con
tradi,unguished from the question OF inter
national comfy and usage within the domain
OF ststssmsn>hip and diplomacy"
Chief Justice Waite dissented from the
opinion of the court and said "A fugitive
from justice has NJ absolute right OF
asylum IN a country To which he flies, aud it
he cannot be got back within the jurisdiction
of the country whose laws he has violated he
may be prosecuted precisely the same as il
he had not fed. unless there is something in
the laws OF the country where he is to be
tired, or in the way in which he was got back
to prevent. If either country should use its
privileges under the treaty to obtain the sur.
render of fugitive on pretence of trying him
for an offence for which extradlion could be
Claimed, so to try him for one for which he
could not, it might furnish just cause for
complaint on the part of the country, which
hal been deceived, but it would be a matter
entirely FIR adjustment between the two
countries, and could in no way enure to the
benefit of the accused, except through the
instrumentality of the government that had
been induced to give him up"