The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-12-07
The ExtraditiOn Case of r. ". Rer,

WASHINGTON, December GA de-
2 sion was also rendered by the court
In me Important extradition case Of Fred
erick M. ker against the people of the
state OF Illinois, brought here by a writ Of
error 70 the Supreme Court of that State. In
1858 her, who was a clerk In the emp oy of
Preston, kean * Co. Of Chicago, embezzled
a la go sum of money belOnging 90 that firm
and fed to Peru, South America. Upon an
plication from the Governor If Illinois the
PTesident Of the United states, on the lat
OF March, 1883, Issued q warrant for the ex-
tradition Of ker and sent it to Peru by Henry
" Jullan who was authorized 10 receive
the, accused from the Peruvian authorities
and 0ling him to the United States to answer
a charge of larceny. Ker al leges that Julian,
without Pr.esen.ing tho extfadition papers
10 any ot1cer of the. Peruvian Govern
ment, and without making any demand upon
that governme nt for his surrend.r, foroibly
kidnapped him and paced him on beard of
the United, States vessel Essex by which he
WIS brought to Honolulu, There be was
otansierrsd, ne allsEe,, to the steamer City
tnon, surrendered by the Governor Of Cali
f0rnia to tbs authorities OF the state of Hi
nols asa fugitive from ~iustice. Upon his
arrival In Chicago. Ker was put on trial and
ment, he alleges that this whole proceed
ing was a violation of the prov sions of the
treaty between the United states and Peru,
ratified July u. 1874 and he appeals to the
supreme Court UPON the ground that the
case cal s in question the valid ~ or tho i'm
proper contraction Of a treaty. Tn 8
had been brought 70 this country BY
proceedings under the treaty OF 1874 wi h
peru, 1t Is probable from the statement OF
the case In record that he might have suc-
cessfuily pie ded that he was extraditsd for
larceny n con vioted by the verd OF NJ q
jury OF embezGlomeDt; Tut It 10 quite a differ
snt case when ne comes TO tnis o'untry in
M ~ d n r ny 4 n -. L. --. -
clothed with no ris hts which a proceoding un-
ger the,t:reaty could have given him and no
duty which the country owe, 10 Perm or TO him
un or the treaty. Tho court thinks Ii very
clear that 70 INVOKING its jurisdiction upon
the ground that he was denied = rieht confer
redsupo nihm by a trsl ty sfthe United states,
the t%risonor has failed to establish the exist.
enoe OF any such right.
The QUESTION of how far his forcthle
seizure in ano her country and transfer by
gould be msde available to retist trial 10 the
STATE court for the Ofe Sc now charged Idol
hin, Is Ooe which this court does not eel
called upon TO decide, since 10 that transact
stitution or laws, or treaties of the United
States guarantee him any protection.
The court holds, however, that this de-
cision does not leave the prisoner or the gov
eInueHt Of Peru without remedy
ing treaty with that country
provides for the extraditiOn of persons
eharged with kidnapping, and on demand
from Peru, Julian, the party guilty of it,
tor violation of ii AIS. Ker him self would
probably not DO without redress, for he could
sue Julian in an 40 of tiespass AID false
imprisonment and the facts set forth in the
plea would without doubt sustain the action.
" het1 er he could recover Il sum sufficient to
justly the action would probably depend
upon the moral aspects of the case, which
We cannot here consider.
The Judgment. Of he SupremeeCOurt of
illinois,. sustaining the decision of the
Criminal Court of Cook county against the
prisoner is affirmed. Opinion by Justice
Miller.
A decision wa, also rendered by the court
today IL another important extraditiOn case,
viz /: The United Stat VS.. VIM. RauschIer.
kauschier, was an officer Of an American
vessel, who was -~eXtradited from Great
Bri ain to answer f,r the murder Of q sea-
man, aid who Wa aftsrward bsou.ht 10 rial
%unusuel punishment Of the same seaman
whom be was charged with numbering. The
ease, brings up an impOrtant question which
long been a subject Of diplomatic nsgo-
ilati0n between the goyernments Of tho
United States and Great Britain, and which
has n yer before been finally settled, viz:
neither under the extrsdition treaty
in force between the two countries, a pers n
extradited for, ono offense can 10 tried for
1t is tho same question which
was discussed by Secretsry Fieh and
Lord Derby in the Winslow and Lawtsnse
cases, and which sfterward beoame a subject
OF consldeTation in tie Eoglish House Of
Lords, but which was never brought to a
definite settlement. This court holds. 10 a
long and carefully prepared opinion by
Mr.. Justice Miller, that a person who has
been brought within the jurisdiction OF tho
court by virtue of proceedings under an ex-
tradition treaty, can only DO tried Tor one OF
The 0tfenses Described in the treaty, and for
the odenSe with which he is CHARGED in tho
proceedings for his eXtrsditiOn, until O rea-
time and opportunity have been
yiveR him, after his release or trial under
such charge, to return to tho country from |
asylum he had been forcibly taken
these proceedings.
Chief Justice Waite disseuts from tho
Of tho court. on the ground hat no
ioes not find in tho treaty anything which
'orbids the trial Of tho prisoner for an offense
thor than that for which no was extradited.