The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-07-05
At the Session of the q. S. Supreme
Court at jackson Yesterday.
The Case Entails Many Noteworthy
Details and Involves
That Of Man Who Had Commit
ted Murder in Prussia.
The Argument Establishing the Decis-
ion Is Profound and Recog nizes-
the Demands of the Treaty
Extradition Granted.

JACKSON, Miss, July Am the case
ex parte Ludwig Rischke, Prussian,
sought to be extradited on habcas corpus,
before Justice Lamar, Of the United States
-supreme court, the argument was con-
Guided at o'clock pm. by j. X. Burns,
of Galveston, Tex, for the relator. There
upon the court, from the bench, delivered
orally his decision, in substance as fol-
lows:
"This case is here in answer to writ
of habeas corpus directed to the United
States marshal OF the Eastern district Of
Texas, commanding him to produce the
relator at jackson, Miss, on the I'd day OF
July, 1888, together with a statement Of
the time and cause OF his imprisonment
and detention. also granted a writ Of
certiori in aid OF the habeas corpus writ
TO Judge Sabin, United States district
Judge OF the same district. These writs
were issued on petition signed and veri-
fled on oath by said Rschke, setting forth
that he is imprisoned and restrained OF his
liberty under warrant issued by the said
Judge Sabin, and that the said imprison-
ment is unlawful Tor the reasons named
therein.
"To the writ OF habeas corpus the mar
shall made return that he held the prisoner
by virtue OF a commitment issued by the
Hon. G. q. Sabin, United States judge,
commanding him TO hold said Rischke
subject TO the orders OF the Secretary OF
State OF the United States for extraditon
to Germany. Judge Sabin returned a
transcript OF all the proceedings had before
him, including the requisition OF the Prus-
sian Government, the mandate OF the
President TO the Judge, dispositions, etc,
including his final order OF commitment
OF the prisoner for !extradition. The un-
disputed facts OF the case, as shown in the
Nrccord, are--iirst, that demand was made
~. the authorities OF Prussia upon our
c.. hrnment for the extradition OF this
AH-oner; that there was mandate from the
.Iesiicnt 10 Judge Sabin; that the Prus-
sian authorities had n strong interest In
the proceedings and an earnest purpose TO
have this prisoner brought TO trial in that
country; that there was complaint for
mally made by the German Emperor
against the prisoner, charging him with
the crime OF murder, and therefore sub
iect, under treaty OF June IL, 1852, be-
tween the United States and Prussia, 10
be tried there for that odcnse. The pro-
cecdings were therefore under the author
ity of that treaty and the statutes Of the
United States. This application must be
determined by the terms Of the treaty and
the provisions of the statutes. Whatever
NAV he the true rule In other cases, us 10
This case the provisions OF the treaty must
be my guide. The language OF the treaty
Is simple and imperative. The enacting
clause reads thus The United States and
Pri ia, shall upon mutual acquisitions,
respectfully made, deliver up 10 justice all
prisoners, who being charged with the
crime OF murder which shall be found
within the territories Of the other. II the
treaty stopped here the obligation Of our
government 10 deliver up for extradition
upon the demand setting forth the charge
would be absolute. There Is, however, a
proviso which modifies the simplicity OF
the stipulation. II imposes certain con-
ditions take as the treaty making power
show proper 10 impose are expressed in
the proyiso, and that none other can be
implied. Those conditions are: !. That
the delivery shall be made upon such evil
dencc Of criminality rs, according TO the
laws OF the place where fugitive
shallbe found, would justify his apprehen'
sion and commitment for trial; not bis
conviction but his commitment, 20 de-
clarcd by the very terms Of the treaty.
2. The magistrates shall have power
ON complaint made under oath, 10 issue q
warrant for the apprehension OF the per
son NO charged, that he may he brought
before such magistrate mot before some
other magistrate, but before the very mag
isinio issuing the warrant) 20 the END
that the evidence may be heard and con
sidcred. 3. II on such hearing tina
u, tho hearing by the magistrate issuing
the warranty the evidence be deemed sui
iicicnt 90 sustain the charge, II shall he In,
duty Of tho examining magistrate 10 Ger
tify the same TO the proper executive au
thoriiy, that n warrant may be issued fo
the surrender. l have listened with grca
interest, and must add with much profit
60 the argument OF the able counsel 70
the rclator Of the question NJ 10 the quan
tum OF evidence required 10 be deemes
sufficient by such magistrate TO make ]
his duty 10 commit the party for extradi
ton. The authorities cited by them I,
the effect that the evidence must be sucl
~ would warrant n conviction on ilna
trial 10 justify him In holding a per
son for oxtradition are unequivic, and o
great weight. They hold that the eyi
dcncc should be not only competent bu
ANAt NiN ntatnih'N'ilf AhtN wv 1hthHN ~
charged has been committed by the pris
onor in the foreign Jurisdiction, sufficient
~ 20. ! repeat, 10 warrant q verdict o
guilty by Jury on n final trial. The doc
trinc, however, has been modified by ,hI
current Of recent adjudication In thl
United States circuit courts. The princi
pie now generally determined by thcm.i
that II the evidence Is sufficient TO com
init the prisoner for trial u Is enough u
Justify his detention for extradition. Thi
question IA settled by the decision Of TN
supreme court Of the United States II
Benson W. Mcmahon. The opinion o
the court was delivered by Acting Chic
4 Justice Miller. lie $syg
y "fhe subject oil what proof shall be 70
! y quired for the delivery. upon fequisition
q parties charged with crime Is consid
cred In Article !. OF the treaty (rcierrinl
n the treaty Of exiradition between th
United States and Mexicoj In regard 4
which u h provided that this shall b
done only when the fact Of the commits
sion Of the crimo shall be 70 establishe
M that the laws Of the countr
In which the fugitive or the pei
sou 40 accused shall lao found woil