The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-08-14
ExtraditiOn Could Not he Secured on
the Documents Presented to Him
for Consideration.
NO FURTHER ACTION TAKEN
COUNSEL FOR THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT SURPRISED.
Fugitives Free to Travel Anywhere in
the British Empire-Richards and
Knox Unwilling to Talk.

QUEBEC, Aug. 13.-Col. John F. Gaynor
and Capt. Benjamin d. Greene scored de-
cisive victory to-day in their fight against
extraditlon TO the United States, where they
are wanted in connection with alleged
frauds in harbor work for the federal gov
ernment involving millions of dollars Judge
Caron, in the Superior Court, discharged
the prisoners from the custody of Sheriffs
Langelier, OF Quebec. and valee, of Mon
treal. in whose official care they have been
since their sensational arrest in Quebec
last May. large number of the prisoners
friends. including Mrs. Gaynor. were in
the courtroom and they heartily congrat-
ulated the two men upon their release.
Colonel Gaynor and Captain Greene left
the courtroom soon after Judge Caron had
concluded and proceeded to the Chateau
Frontenac. Colonel Gaynor, who is suffer-
ing from rheumatism. retired to his room.
1t is understood that the United States
government will institute new proceedings
for extradition. but up to a late hour
step had been taken by counsel represent
ing the Washington authorities.
Judge Caron. who spoke in French. oc-
cupied about two hours in delivering his
judgment. In reviewing the legal proceed
ings since the arrest of the two prisoners
he pointed out that their counsel had
raised an important question to the effect
that the warrant issued by Magistrate La
fontaine was illegal. on the ground that 1t
does not contain the date nor the year in.
which the alleged offense had been commit
ted. He could not presume when the Of
fense was committed. and it may have been
previous TO the signing of the treaty be-
tween the United States and Great Britain,
and if so the accused could not be held, as
the treaties had no retroactive effect.
NOT INCLUDED IN TREATIES
According to a deposition made In Mon
treal by Mr.. Erwin, counsel for the United
States In May last, continued Judge Caron.
the accused were charged with fraud COM
mitted about Jan. /, 1897. That
crime was not included in the treaties, and
that of receiving money under false pre-
lenses was only included in the treaty of
1900. This was fatal to the prosecution,
and the warrant issued by Judge Lafon-
taine was defective, as the offense included
therein did not fall under the extradition
treaty; consequently the arrest was illegal
and accused must be set at liberty
In rendering his decision Judge Caron
quoted authority for his issue of writ
of certiorari in his previous judgment, and
showed that the writ of habeas corpus new
ertheless remained in force, even without
the extradition commissioner having pro-
nounced upon the case for the prisoner has
always a right to question the justice CT
his being deprived of his liberty American
courts have taken a similar view in the
case of a forger who was a fugitive from
Quebec provinces.
honor EXPRESSED he nniD thaf
Judge Andrewss judgment quashing his
own writ of habeas corpus did not decide
the merits of the case, and. nOtwithstand-
ing the pretensions of lawyers for
the prosecution TO the contrary. his
writ in no way confiicted with
Judge Andrews's Judgment for 2 nris-
oner may always renew his application
providing that some new facts are stated
as had been done I'm the present case One
OF these referred TO the absence on the war
rants of the dates on which the Offense
was alleged to have been committed and
the other an objection of the validity of
the charge or conspiracy to defraud under
the eXtradition treaty. To make the war
rant valid the date of the offense if com
mitted must be inserted in ii TO prove the
commissioners jurisdiction. Moreover, the
exact crime with which the prisoners are
charged and the proceedings to be taken
against them they have a right to know
In the Emo case the offense with which
the prisoner was charged in the extradi-
ton proceedings and that made elsewhere
did not agree. In the present case there
was distinct discrepancy between the
| charges on the various true bills against
the prisoners obtained in the United States
and between them and that made in the
application for eXtradition. This. as well
| as the absence of the date in the warrant
he held TO be distinctly fatal TO the latter
THE DECISION.
After citing authorities in support of his
decision. Judge Caron concluded as follows:
considering that the warrant in virtue of
I
no date of the commission of the offense
whereof the petitioners are accused; con-
/ sidering that in virtue of the treaties Of
extradition existing between Great Britain
and the United States. it is positively pro-
vided that these treaties shall have no re-
/ troactive effect for otfenses committed be-
/ fore their passage: considering that the
/ allegation of the date of the commission Of
/ offenSC is in consequence essential TO give
I Jurisdiction Of the commissioner to issue a
warrant Of arrest; considering, furthermore,
4 that il is not alleged in the warrant that
I the offense for which said warrant has been
/ issued is one of criminal participation, pun
/ ishable by the laws of both countries. which
/ IL a condition required by the last para
graph Of the first article of the treaty of
1 1880; considering that the information. in
dictments and true bills and all documents
/ produced for the issue of the warrant
\ show that the offenses Of which the petit
/ tioners are charged and for which they
/ would have to stand their trials in the
/ United States should extradtion be grant
| ed, are not within the terms of the treaties
\ OF extradition between Great Britain and
/ the United States and discloses no offense
! committed by the prisoners for which they
+ could be eXtradited under the said treaties
\ considering in consequence that the war
rant OF arrest by the said Uric Lefontaine
\ in his above capacity is null and illegal and
\ could not warrant the arrest of the peti-
i toner, the court rejects the said motion of
the United States, intervening party, TO
quash the said writs of habeas corpus ad-
/ dressed TO me on June p last TO the said
c. A Vaiee, doth declare the arrest and