The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-01-27
SENTENCED FOR ASSAULT.
GEORGE Bartlett Must Spend Two
Years in the District Jail.

/
An opinion was handed down in the Po-
| lice Court yesterday afternoon by Judge
| charles f. Scott in the case of George W.
| Bartlett. who was under trial on three
| charges of assault on Pearl and Ada Hard
| esty. Tour and eight years old, wherein he
| neid that person extradited into the
District Of Columbia under one charge
| was subject to trial another. In this
| respect he held that International usage
| did not apply. the reading of the deci-
sion was listened to by number OF prom
lnent attorneys. who have taken unusual
| interest in this case and at its conclusion
Attorney a. S Colyar, who appeared for
the defendant. objected TO the considera-
tion of an authority which had not been
quoted in open court and to which he had
not had the opportunity of presenting au-
thorities in rebuttal He asked permits
sion to introduce additional authorities
at that time, but this was denied and he
took exception. He then made mo-
ton to dismiss the cases. as the Govern
ment had failed to show that the crime
was committed in the District, but as 1t
was recalled that evidence had been in
troduced on this point this motion was
also overruled
At the conclusion of an extended arSu-
ment by Attorney Colyar, Judge Scott
announced that from the evidence he
of the cases, and he was sentenced TO
total of two years and three months in
Jail in default of 1890 fine. No motion
for a new trial was made, but Attorney
Colyar has announced his intention OF Gp-
plying TO Judge Bradley for a writ OF ha-
beas corpus and if this is denied, he sta es
that he will take the matter to the Co-rt
of Appeals. Judge SCOTS decision in full
follows:
After the United States had intro
duced testimony TO support the charges
as set forth in the Information. the de-
PENDANTS attorney, declining to Introduce
evidence. moved the court to d -STn.sS ne
cases. alleging want of jurisdiction, be-
cause the informations upon which de-
PENDANT was being tried set forth dii-
ferent offence than that disclosed in the
warrant on which said defendant was
brought within this jurisdiction under ex-
tradition proceedings.
Defendants attorney contended that as
defendant was extradited from Pennsyl-
yania upon a warrant charging him with
assault with the intent to commit rape,
| he could not be held or tried upon
information charging assault. and to sus-
tain said contention. among other cases,
cited the case of the United States VS..
Rauscher 119 United States, All ct seq, as
controlling authority on the question
raised by him. Said case cannot be made
to apply to the question under considera-
ton because 1t proceeded upon the ground
of right given implicitly by the terms OF
treaty between the United States and
Great Britain as we'll as expressly by the
acts of. Congress in the case of fugitive
surrendered to the United States by a for
eign nation. That treaty, which specified
the offences that were extraditabie, and
the statutes OF the United States passed
to carry II and other like treaties into
effect constituted the supreme law OF the
land and weres construed to exempt the
extradited fugitive from trial for any 9TH
ar offence than. that mentioned In the de-
maDd for his surrender.
THE exact question involved in the de-
PENDANTS contention is ably presented in
the case of Lasceiies VS.. Georgia in an
opinion of the. Supreme Court Of the
United States delivered by Mr.. Justice
Jackson, lab q. S. Reports. page 537. in
which the difference between extradition
under treaty stipulations between foreign
nations and Interstate rendition Is con-
sidered. the one depending upon the
treaty contract. while in the other there
Is the binding force,and obligation not of
contract. but of the supreme law OF the
land which imposes no conditions or limi-
tstions upon the Jurisdiction and authority
of the State to which the fugitive is re-
turned. ~ -a0
Concluding his opinion. he says: Upon
fugitive's surrender to the State de-
manding his return in pursuance or ma
tional law he may be tried in the State
to which he Is returned for any other cf-
fence than that specified in the requIsl-
ton for his rendition and that in so try
ing him against his objection, no right,
privilege, or immunity secured to him by
the Constitution and laws OF the United
States is thereby denied
THE limitations urged by defendant as
to trial of the cases now being heard in
this court are not sustained and. there
fore the motion to dismiss is overruled."