San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1895-02-12
JUDGE PRICES OPINION.
Why Rafael Ramirez, Tried for
Extradltiop, Was Discharged.

Extradltiop, Was Discharged.
The following is a copy OF the
opinions rendered by United
States Commissioner l.. F. Price, in
the Rafael Ramirez extradition
case:
The evidence Ia this case fully
establishes the fact that the &C
cused was present, aiding and
abetting, II not actually participant
ing in the assault made on the
troops Of the Mexican government,
stationed at San Ignacio, on the
10th Of December, 1892. In other
words, the court considers his
criminality as charged in the COM
plant, established beyond any rea-
sonable doubt. Had this examina-
tion and conclusion been arrived
at prior to the decision in
the Ezeta case, and in the de-
cision in the Ruiz ct al.
case, the finding OF this
court together with a certified
copy Of the testimony would have
been forwarded to the secretary Of
state at Washington. While the
decisions referred to are not con-
sidered as absolutely controlling,
they are strongly persuasive OF
what the action OF this court
should be. II the defendant had
proven beyond any reasonable
doubt, an alabi, there can be found
no reason under the provisions Of
the treaty or under the law why
this court should not discharge
him. Aud why? Simply because
he did not commit the crimes
charged against him. But il he
Is citizen or the crimes
charged constitute or grown out OF
matters purely political, or what
are technically termed in the
treaty, "otfenses Of purely politi-
cal character" the defendant would
be as completely non-eXtraditable
as though they never had been
committed, and this, though his
criminality may have been fully
proven. II citizenship be salts
factorily proven, the provision Of
the treaty that neither contract.
ing party shall be bound to deliver
up its own citizens" has been con-
strued in the McCabe case by
Judge Maxey to be mandatory
and not permissive. "Offenses
Of purely political charac-
ter stand on higher ground. The
provision OF the treaty requires
no construction ;they are positive
]y and Internationally exempted.
The power OF circuit and district
judges to hear and decide upon
these questions of defense, either
upon original complaint or upon
habeas corpus, seems clear and I'M
disputed. The President, in his an
nual message to Congress, referred
approvingly to the action OF the
court in the EZeta case. A United
States commissioner thereunto au-
thorized, has the same pow
ers Of disposition as the
judges who are referred to.
The practice, duties and powers
OF United States commissioners
are by act Of Congress and numer-
Gus decisions OF the Supreme court
and inferior courts assimilate to
the practical duties and powers of
state magistrates in the states
where they reside. Where state
magistrates have final jurisdiction
they hear and pass upon all the
defenses Of the accused, and dis
charge, tine or commit as the evil
dence may warrent. Where the
evidence in an eXtradition case
fails to establish the criminality
Of the accused, the commissioners
evidently has the power to dis
charge him. Why not discharge
him when the evidence develops
facts and defenses, which under
the treaty render his case non.ex-
traditable? The fact of citizenship
or purely political otfense, as clear
ly entitle entitle him to discharge
as the non-proof of criminality.
And this case stands on the exact
footing Of those cases. In addition
to these authorities the scores of
convictions and sentences to i'm
prisonment for violating the neu-
trality laws Of the United States,
which have occurred in this dis
trict during the past two or three
years, all based on the proven fact
that a military organization was
set on foot and prosecuted on
and from United States territory
against a friendly nation, of which
the assault on San Ignacio was an
incident, and in which this de-
fendent participated, was to all in
tents and purposes political re-
volt, /. e., a political offence, and
under the treaty, participants