The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1893-04-10
EVEN IF IT'S BY VIOLENCE.
The Law of Extradition Between the
States Given by Justice
Jackson.
Byers' Case in Point With the
One Decided by the SUI
preme Court.
The Surrendered Fugitive May be Tried
Tho Surrendered Fugitive May be Tried
for Any Other OHense Than
the One Specified.

Persons who have been watching the
Byers case in Helena will be interested in a
synopsis of the Beresford case which ID di-
rectly in point. 1t was decided by the su-
preme court of the United States on April
3. in an opinion written by Justice jackson.
The case was an appeal by Sidney Lascelles
from the Judgment of tho supreme court Of
Georgia. Justice jackson decided that a
fugitive from Justice, rendered under extra
dition proceedings by one state to another,
may be con%stitutionally tried in the latter
state upon an indictment charging another
offence than the one set forth in the war
rant of extradition. Lascslles, under the
alias of Walter S. Beresford. and claiming
to be a son of Lord Beresford, enjoyed a
career of swindling through the eastern
part of the United States which. when his
character was exposed, gave him a national
reputation. He was crested in New York
upon a warrant OF extradition from Georgia
charging him with "being a common cheat
and swindler' and with larceny after trust
delegated"
After being delivered to the Georgian au-
thorities. and while in jail there, no was
again indicted. this time for forgery. and
under his true name of Henry Lascelles.
Being placed upon trial, he pleaded that he
was being tried for a different otfense thar
the one named in the warrant of extradi-
ton. This was over-ruled by the court and
he WAS convicted. Appealing to the SUI
preme court of the state, the Judgment of
the lower court was affirmed. and then he
came to the supreme court of the United
States.
1.-THE single federal question presented by
the record" said Justice jackson, 'is
whether a fugitive from Justice, who had
been surrendered by one state of the union
to another state thereof by requisition
charging him with the commission Of a
specific crime, has. under the constitution
and laws of the United States, a right.
privilege or immunity to be exempt from
Indictment or trial in the state to which he
is returned for any other or different Of
fense than that designated and described
in the reqnisition proceedings under which
he was demanded by and restored to such
state without frat having an opportunity
to return to the state from which he was
extradlted."
This case presented this precise point to
the supreme court OF the United States for
: the first time.
"The proposition advanced by the appel
lant." 8 aid Justice Jackson, '.is that he has
the same right to be tried alone for the
crime charged in the warrant Of extradition
as if no were a fugitive Of justice extradited
from a foreign nation. This proposition
assumes. as is broadly claimed. that the
states of the union are independent govern
ments. having the full ~prerogatives and
powers of nations. except what have been
conferred upon the general government.
and not only have the right to grant, but
| do in fpct- afford tn nil rarocna Uytfhip
their boundaries an asylum as broad and
secure as that which independent nations
extend over their citizens and inhabitants.
"The fallacy Of the argument lies in the
assumption that the states of the union oc-
eupy toward each other, in respect to fugi.
tives from justice. the relation of foreign
nations in the Same sense in which the gen-
eral governments stands toward independ-
ent sovereiRnties OF that subject. There ia
nothing in the constitution or statutes OF
the United States in reference to interstate
rendition of fuQitives from Justice which
can be regarded as establishing any com
pact between the states Of the union, such
as tho Ashburton treaty contains, limiting
their operations to particular or designated
offenses. On the contrary, the provisions
of the organic and statutory law embrace
Grimes and ohenses of every character and
description punishable by the laws Of the
state where the forbidden acts are COM
mitted.
at is questionable whether the statel
could constitutionally enter into any agree.
ment or stipulation with each other for the
purpose of defining or limiting the ofsuset
for which fuRitives would or should be sur
rendered. But it is settled by tho decisions
of this court that. except in the case of q
fugitive surrendered by a foreign govern
ment. there is nothing in the constitution
of the United States which eyempts ar
offender brought before the courts of Z
state from trial and punishment, oven
though brought from another state by un-
lawful violence, or by abuse of legal pro.
cess"
After discussing at some length Other
features OF the case, Justice jackson con
cluded as follows:
Our conclusion Is that. upon n fup!tive'i
surrender to this state demanding his return
in pursuance of national law, he may be
tried in the state to which he is returned
for any other ofense than that specified in
the requisition for his rendition, and that
IN so trying him, against his objectior, nc
right, privilege or immunity secured to him
by the constitution and laws of the United
States Is thereby denied"
The writ of error WIS therefore dis
missed. the judgment of the Georgia courts
being sustained.
1t will be remembered that Byers was
brought to Helena from Kansas on extradi-
ton papers charging him with forgery. He
was tried before Judge Hun and convicted
and then granted a new trial on account OF
tho insutliciency of evidence to show for.
gerry. From the order granting tho new
trial the county attorney appealed to the
state sur, eme court where the case is now
pending. After Byers' conviction an infor,
nation WAS fled charging him with CRANE
larceny. 4. j. Walsh, his attorney. raised
the point that b ers could not be tried fol
an offence for which he had not boon extra.
dited. Judge Hunt. before the suprem,
court had passed on the Lascelles case, de-
cided jnst as That court did. Mr.. Waist
then went to tho United States circuit cour'
with the queation. Judge Knowles has no
yet given his opinion ~ he is waiting for
certified copy of Justice Jackson's opinion
Inu Should See