Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1891-03-18
Diego, and was arrested and placed in jail,
awaiting now extradtion papers. The
following is what she is held ou:-
.svy ADD ar Appron

awaiting HOW 6AbIduitiOn papers. Inc
following is what she is held ou:-
WARRANT OF ARREST.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
CAMERON COUNTY.
To the sheriff OF. any county.
You are hereby commanded to arrest
Maria Inez McCabe if to be found In your
county, and bring her before E. G. Forto,
county judge and extradition agent for said
county at my Office in Brownsville, then
and there to answer the requisition and de-
maud made for extraditiou made by Ramon
| Flores, judge of the Third judicial fraction
and extradition agent, Matamoras, state of
Tamaulipas, Mexico, charging the said M
l. McCabe with having committed the
crime of murder within the state of Ta-
maulipas, Mexico, on the 18th of August,
1890. Herein fail not, but of this writ
make due return, showing how you have
execrted the same.
Witness my of1cial signature this 18th
day of February, A. D. 1891.
E. G. FoRTo.
County Judge and Extradition Agent,
Cameron County, Texas.
If carried back TO Mexico, Mrs. McCabe
would have to eerve double her former
sentence-would be 10 years, and her cell
would be isolated, dark and doubtlessly
filed with veImin, and she would probably
be chained to the stone-foor of her prison.
| Shs is without money and with but few
friends, and she says. "When l lie down
at night, I awake in frightened dream
that am being dragged back to a dark
and loathsome Mexican dungeon by my re-
lentless pursuers. But she adds, ssmy
suspense will soon be over, and if they de-
| mid IN hovA 70
enemies, I will cheat them of all the pleas
ure they anticipate at my coming, as
TWILL END MY EARTHLY CAREER
on my native soil of Texas. My Spirit
shall take its flight over the dark river ere
my body crosses the Rio Grande."
| She will take her own lifel Now take
notice she won't do any such thing. This
is all done for effect. She says her trial
and conviction was mockery. If so, why
did she nos appeall to higher court. The
writer knows some things about Mexican
prisons. (See my letter in the SPECTATOR
some time ago on Mexican prisons) and
Mexican laws. They grind exceedingly
stow, but exceedingly fine, and the laws of
Texas are copied after the same law as is
extant in Mexico, the old Spanish law. Mr..
McCabe did not appeal on her first trial.
Note whether she appeals when Judge
Russell decides
AGAINST HER DISCHARGE.
Her case was tried before Judge Jno G.
Russell On February 23rd, with Messrs.
Wech and Scott, Esqs., for her defence,
and the Co:nmonwealth's Attorney to Op-
pose the discharge. Mrs. McCabe was sworn
and examined and most of testimony we're
the facts as stated above, but in her own
way, and was crossed questioned by. the
Commouweelth's attorney. DR.. Headly
was then placed upon the stand; said he
was acquainted with Mrs. McCabe and her
husband, now in Jail at Brownsville. He
also testified as attending physician to seri-
GUS Injury of Mrs. McCabe's foot and said
that she could not bear the fatigue incident
to transportation to Brownsville without
great bodily injury, and probably serious re-
suits to her injured foot. He had forgotten
the bodily pain of Max Stein and the awful
anguish of his dear wife. Truly the way
of the transgressor ought to be hard. Her
attorneys then read the following law of the
country to the court, and after the attor
neys on both sides had delivered quite
lengthy arguments.
LAW READ BY DEFENDANTS COUNSEL.
can examination of the extradition
treaties between the United States sid 9TH
er countries shows the following to contain
the sentence, Neither of the contracting
parties shall be bound to deliver the stipula-
tions of this treaty. being the same as that
contained in the Mexican treaty:-Treaty
with Austria, December Is, 1856; B .den,
May 19, 1857; Bavaria, November 1S, 1864;
Belgium, May 1, 1874; Belgium, November
20, 1882; Hanover, November 5. 1856; Hayti,
July 6. 1865; Japan, May rs, 1875; Mexico,
June 10, 1862"
'In 1874 Francisco Perez, Mexican,
murdered Joseph Alexander. an American,
residing at Brownsville, Texas, and escaped
into Mexico. 1t was the purpose of this
government to have Perez sent back for
trial On this side the ntier, and the in
struction from Mr.. Fish to Mr.. Foster states
that though this, under the treaty, could
not be expected as a matter of right, and
would not be asked as a matter of favor or
even accepted as such with any understand
ing that it would be reciprocated by US, still
Mr.. Foster was authorized to apply to the
Mexican Government, making known all
the circumstances. and submitting whether
they were not such as to warrant volun-
tary surrender of the party, if this could in
any case be done. October 8, 1874, Mr..
Foster reported that the Mexican Govern.
ment declined to Surrender Perez, and Mr..
Fish, in acknowledging this dispatch, re-
marked that 1t was not surprising that the
Mexican Government SO acted, especially
that it had the technical right to refuse the
request"
n
"By the treaty with Mexico proclaimed
June Goth, 1862, this country places itself
under obligation to Mexico to surrender to
justice persons accused of enumerated
crimes committed within the jurisdiction of
Mexico who shall be found within the terri
tory of the United States; and further pre-
vides that that obligation shall not extend
to the surrender of American citizens. Tne
treaty confers upon the President no affirm
at;ve power to surrender an American cti-
zen The treaty between the United States
aad Mexico creates an obligation on the
part of the respective governments and does
no more; when the obligation ceases the
power falls. 1t is true that treaties are the
laws of the land, but statute and treaty
are subject to different modes of construc-
ton. If statute by the first section should
say: The President of the United States
shall surrender to any friendly plwer any
person who has committed crime against
the laws of that power, but shall not be
bound so TO surrender American citizaus, it
might be argued, perhaps correctly, that the
President had a discretion whether be
would or would not surrender an American
citizen. But a treaty is contrsct, and
must be so Construed. 1t confers upon
the President only the power to perform
that contract l understand the treaty with
Mexico as reading thus: The President shall
be bound to surrender any pers 1a guilty Of
crime, unless such person ia a citizen OF the
United States.
sSuch being the construction of the
treaty, aud believing that the time to pre-
vent a violation of the Law Of extradition
was before the citizens left the jurisdiction
of the United States, telegraphed the gov
ernor of Texas that an American citizen
could not legally be held under the treaty
for extradition.
s,It would be great evil that those guilty
of high crime, whether American citizens 3
/; not, should go unpunished; but even that
result could not justify an usarpation Of
power.
ssOn further reflection, in view of the fact