The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-04-21

when exposed. caused quite q sensation.
He was arrested in New York upon
a warrant of extradition from Geor-
Ria, charging him with being "a
common cheat and swindler" and with
larceny after trust delegated" After
being delivered to the Georgia authori-
ties. and while in jail there, he was in
dicted, under his true name of Lascelles.
for forgery. On his trial he pleaded
that he was being tried for a different
Offense than the one named in the war
rant of extradition. In the case of ex-
tradition from foreign nation this
would be good plea, as, In such case,
our treaties provide that person can
only be tried for the exact. crime for
which he is extradited. But the Georgia
court held that the rule did not hold as
between the States of the Union, and
overruled the plea The fallacy of the
plea lay in the assumption that the
States of the Union occupy. towards
each other. in respect to fuRitives from
justice, the relation of foreign nations
in the same sense In which the general
government stands towards independ-
ent sovereignties on that subject. The
Supreme Court said:
There is nothing in the Constitution OF
statutes of the United States In reference
to interstate rendition of fngitives from
justice which can be regarded as establish
ing any compact between the States OF the
Union, such AS the Ashburton treaty con-
tairs, limiting their operation to particular
or designated Offenses. On the contrary,
the provisions of the organic and statutory
law embrace crimes and otfenses of every
character and description punishable by
the laws of the State where the forbidden
acts are committed.
1t Is questionable whether the States
could constitutionallv enter into any
agreement or stipulation with each other
for the purpose of defining or limiting the
ofenses for which fugitives would OF
should be surrendered. But it Is settled
by the decisions of this court that except
in the case of q fugitive surrendered by a
foreign government, there is nothing in
the Constitution, treaties or the laws OF
the United States which exempIs an Of
fender. brought before the courts of q State
for al offense against its laws, from trial
and punishment. even though brought
from another State by unlawful violence
or by abuse of legal process.
Our conclusion Is that upon fugltive's
surrender to the State demanding his re-
be tried in the State to which he is re-
turned for any other offense than that
specified in the requisition for his rendi-
ton. and that In so trying him against his
objection. no right. privilege or immunity
secured to him by the Constitution OF laws
of the United States Is thereby denied.
This has very little if any bearing on
the doctrine of State rights. 1t does,
indeed, declare that there is nothing in
the Constitution which authorizes the
States of the Union to assume toward
one another the attitude of foreign SOW
ereignties. but it also asserts the right
of any State to try person extradited
from another State for different crime
than the one on which he was extra
dited.
The most interesting point about it
was that the opinion was the first one
handed down by Justice Jackson, whose
appointment by President Harrison was
criticised by some as a dangerous PAN
dering to State sovereignty ideas. There
is nothing of this in the decision.