Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1886-12-07
THREE BIG LAW POINTS.
LoUISIANA'S LOTTERY EXEMPT
FROM TAXATION.

Frederick NJ. Ker's Seizure in Peru foA
Embezz ement Declared Not In vioIal
ito" of Any of the Pr"vistOns OF the
Extradition Treaty - ExtradItion fOt
One Onense Cannot be Followed by
Trial for Another.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 6.-The Supreme
Court to-day decided that the tax assessed
upon the stock of the Louisiana Lottery
Company by the city OF New Orleans ia
contrary to the State law. TIE charter,
Ing act provided that an annual payment
of $4,000 to the educational iund should
be in lieu Of all other taxation. The
lower court held that no other tax than
this could be levied, and the Supreme
Court upholds this view.
A decision was also rendered by the
court to-day In the important extradition
case OF Frederick M. Ker against the peoi
pie OF the State of Illinois, In 1888 Ker,
who was clerk In the employ OF Prestons
kean h Co., Of Chicago, embezzled a large
sum OF money belonging to that firm and
lied 70 Peru, South America. When tho
extradition papers reached Peru that
country was in the hands OF the Gillian
army, whose commander, when the pas
pers were presented to him, sent Il lie of
GILLIAN soldiers who put Ker on United
states man-of-war and he was brought "a
this country. Ker claimed that he had
been kidnapped and that the treaty with
Peru had been violated. The court h0lds
that under the state OF facts presented
ker bad no rights under the extradition
treaty, and the decision of the IllinoIs
courts which tried and condemned Ker Ia
upheld.
TRIED FOR ANOTHER oFFENsE.
A decision was also rendered lby the
court to-day In another important exg
tradition case. VIZ, the United States
against William Rauscher. Rauscher
was an officer OF an American vessel who
was extradited from Great Britain TO an!
answer for the murder OF a seaman and
who was afterwards brought to trial for 4
different offense, viz, cruel and unusual
punishment OF the same sailor, whom hs
was charged with numbering. The case
brings up an important question which
has long been the subject Of diplomatic
negotiation between toe governments oi
the United states and Great Britain and
which has never before been finally set,
lied, viz, whether under the extraditiou
treaty in force between the two countries
any person extradIted for one ofiense can
be tried for another. 1t Ia the same ques-
tion which was discussed bv Secretary
Fish and Lord Derby in the Winslow aud
Lawrence cases, and which aiterward
became the subject OF consideration in
the English House of Lords, but which
was never brought to a definite settle,
ment. This court holds, In a very long
and carefully prepared opinion by Justice
Miller, that person who has been
brought within the Jurisdiction OF a court.
by virtue OF proceedings uncer an extra
dition treaty, can onlyibe tried Tor one OF
the offenses described IN the tr- atty, and
for the offense with which he il charged
In the proceedings for mis- extFadItion
until reasonable time and opportu nifty
have been given him after his
release on trial under such charge
to return TO the country from whose
asylum be bad been forcibig taken under
these proceedings.
Chief Justice Waite dissents from the
opinion OF the court on the ground that
he can find In the treaty nothing which
forbids trial for any other oiiense than
that tor which extradItion was made,
The decision OF the court in this case is
opposed to the position taken by the
United States government In It's negotias
tIons with the government of Great
Britain with relation TO the NinsLpw and
Lawrence cases.