The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-07-05

mitment Tor trial II the crime had been
there committed" Taking this provision
OF the treaty and that OF the revised
statutes above recited, We are OF the
opinion that the proceedings before the
commissioner is not to be regarded as IN
the nature OF final trial, by which the
prisoner could be convicted or acquitted OF
the crime charged against him, but rather
OF the character OF those preliminary ex-
aminations which take place every day in
this country before an examination or
committing magistrate for the purpose OF
determining whether case is made out
which will justify the holding OF the ac-
cused either by Imprisonment or under
bail. to ultimately answer TO an indictment
or other proceedings, in which he shall be
finally tried upon the charge made against
him. The language OF the treaty which
we have cited above describes the proceed
ings in the preliminary examination as ac-
| curately as language can well do 1t. The
act of Congress comforting jurisdiction
| upon the commissioners other examining
| officer, it may be noted in this con-
nection, says that II he deems the evil
dence sufficient to sustain the charge,
other than the provisions Of the treaty
| he shall certify the same, together with q
|
warrant for the commitment OF the person
| so charged. We are not sitting in this
court on the trial OF the prisoner with
power to pronounce him guilty and pun.
ish him, or declare him innocent and
acqut him. We are now engaged simply
| in an inquiry as 10 whether, under the
construction OF the act Of Congress and
the treaty entered into between this coun-
try and Mexico, there was legal evidence
before the Commissioner 10 justify him
exercising his power to commit the pris-
oner accused to custody 10 await the requi-
sition OF the Mexican government An
other question raised and discussed with
clearness and ability by counsel for relatot
rs to the extent Of the power OF
judge in q proceeding OF this kind TO re-
view and reverse the findings OF facts upon
which the examining magistrate bases his
conclusion as 10 the sufliciency OF the evil
dence adduced before him on tho investi-
eating trial. / do not propose 10 review
the authorities which have been read TO
me on this point. In my judgment, the
treaty makes the investigating magistrate
the Judge OF the weight OF evil
dence, provided IL be legally COM
petent. The considerations urged by
counsel rs TO the hardships Of this rule, II
enforced, are startling and suggestive, but
they can be more properly addressed TO
the legislative department than 10 the
judicial. They are the incxorable condi-
tons In the treaties and statutes relating
TO extradition, and not corrigible except
by the treaty-msking power and the Con-
gress OF the United States. think | am
fully sustained in this by the opinion OF
the court in the case OF Benson vs.. McMa-
hon Just referred to. II says: Several
questions in regard TO the introduction OF
evidence which were raised before the
commissioner, some OF them concerning
the sulliciency OF the Authorization OF
papers and dispositions taken in Mexico,
and rs TO the testimony OF persons sup
posed TO be expert in tho law OF the coun-
try regarding the subject, are found in the
record, which we do not think require
notice here. The writ oi habeas corpus
directed 10 the Southern district Of New
York does not operate as writ
Of error, and many OF the orders
and decisions made by the commits
sioner at the hearing which took
place before him become important In
the examination OF the sufiiciency OF the
proceedings under which he ordered the
prisoner into custody. The main ques-
ton 10 be considered upon such writ ol
habeas corpus must be had the commits
sioner's jurisdictionIto hear and decide up
on the complaint made by the Mexican
consul and also was there sufficient legal
ground for his action In committing the
prisoner 10 await the requisition OF the
Mexican authorities. In this case there Il
no controversy. examining judge, or the
regularity Of the proceedings or the au
thenticity Of depositions, etc. In my
opinion the evidence adduced before the
judge was legally admissible, and the les
timony OF the witness competent, that eyi
dence tended TO show that the person
charged 10 have been murdered by the
J prisoner did come 10 his death by violence
and not by suicide, that there was lcga
evidence tending 10 connect the prisoner
with the crime, however aitenu
! ated, the trend VI this connection
might be considered by the counse
! OF other persons, they were deemed suit
: cient by the Judge AT the hearing OF the
? case 10 Justify him In committing the re-
? lator for extradition. see nothing In the
: record that authorizes me 10 discharge th'
; prisoner. II is therefore ordered that thu
writ Of hsbeas corpus be dismissed, anC
. that the prisoner be remanded 20 the Gus
) tody OF the marshal under the warrant o
a the district Judge committing him."
: Judge Lamar said.that he desired 10 pre-
I pare a written opinion on the case, but N
. In as urinary proceeding Of tins kind Their
!. should be no delay In the final disposition
! OF Il, he deemed Il his duty 10 accompan,
i hia final onler with the above rcmarkB