The evening times., 1901-01-26
JUDGE SCOTHI'S S DECISION
The Notion TO Dismiss the HardeSty
Case 0vePPUled.
He Holds That the Authority of the
Police Court a. a Court of Com
peteut Jurisdiction Has Been
Firmly Established by the RuI-
Ings of the Appellate Tribunals.

Police Judge Charles F. Scott today
handed down mis- decision in the case of
the United States VS.. George W.
Bartlett. who is charged with four cases
OF assault on Pearl and Ada Hardesty-
Judge Scott overruled the motion OF At
torney. \. :. Colyar to dismiss the cases.
and held that tAA Police Court was
court Of competent jurisdiction under a. ne
most recent decisions OF the higher
courts. The case IS one that has ecca-
stoned unusual interest among the legal
fraternity. and a number OF prominent
lawyers were present aud listened at
tentiveIy TO the reading Of the decision
which is as follows:
After the United States had intro
Guced testimony 10 support the charges
as set forth in the information. the de
fendant's attorney declining TO introduce
evidence. moved the court to dismiss the
cases. alleging want of jurisdiction, be
cause the inforrnations upon which de-
fendaut was being tried set forth dli-
fereDt offence than that disclosed in the
warrant on which said defendant was
brought within this jurisdiction under eX-
tradition proceedings
Defendants attorney contended thai as
defendant was extradited from Pennsyl-
vania uuon a warrant charging him vita
assault with the intent to commit rape
he could not be held or tried upon
/ information charging assault. and to sus-
/ tain said conten lion. among other cases,
! cited the case OF the United States vs.
: Rauscher. 1l9 United States, AZ et seq, as
: ? controlling authority on the question
/ raised BY him Said case cannot be made
/ TO apply 10 the question under consldera-
! tfo1 because i proceeded upon the ground
of q right given implicitly BY the terms OF
I a treaty between the United States and
. Great Britain as well as expressly 0y the
acts Of Congress in the case OF fugitive
surrendered 20 the United States by a for
/ aigD nation. That treaty, which speclned
! the offences shat were extradlJable. ana
! the statutes OF the United States passed
/ 10 carry II and other like treaties into
J effect constituted the supreme law OF the
Z .ard and were construed 10 Exempt TIE
: extradi1ed fugitive from trial fo' any otE-
/ OF offence than that mentioned in the de-
/ maud for his surrender
The exact question involved in the de
: fendant's contention IS ably presented IT
the ease Of Lascelles Us. Georgia in ar
H opinion OF LHS supreme tUUEL VI t4-t
United states delivered by MIR Justice
Jackson. l4S l. 8. Reports, page 55I. II
which the difference between eLtradlJioT
under treaty s-ipulati0ns between foreign
nations and interstate rendition is con
ziderei. the one depending upon the
treaty contract while IN the other there
Is the bIniing force and obligation not o
contract. but Of the supreme law OF the
land which imposes no conditions or HmE
JaUions upon the jurisdiction ana atIhoTil-
of tI.l state 10 which the fugitive Is re
turned
The learned Justice after citing th'
constitutional provision authorizing inter
State rendition and the acts Of Congress
prescribing the methods OF procedure oi
the part Of the State demanding the sur
renLer Of q fugitive charged with SOM
particular offence has rot the same rlgh
, Of exemption rs enc exIradiued from
foreign nation"
Concluding his opinion. he says: 'Ipc'
ruzitiyc's sure nder TO the State dc
mandiug his return in pursuance OF MI
tionaI law he may be tried in the stat
10 which ne IS returned for any other q
fence than that specified in the requi5l
ton for his rendition and that IN 50 JrE
ing him against his objection. no rlsh
privilege. or immunity secured TO him o
/ the Constitution and laws of the thiJe
! States Is thereby denied
The limitations urged By defendant a
TO rial Of the cases now being heard
! this court are not sustained. and. therv
| fore the motion 10 dismiss Is oyerruled