The Indianapolis journal., 1903-08-30
SOME ExTRADITIoN LAW.


Great Britain the responsibility of acting
or refusing to act would have rested with
the President of the United States. Now
he is practically relieved of any RESPONSE
bility by the provisions of the treaty which
make the finding of the court his authority
for surrendering the alleged fugitive. The
courts cannot surrender the accused; all
they can do is to find a certain state of
facts and decide the law of the case. Upon
this finding the President surrenders the
alleged fugitive, refuses to surrender
him as the case may be. In the absence
of a treaty he could exercise his own dis
cretion as he did in one notable case. In
1873 the Belgian government asked for the
surrender of one Carl Vogt, who was
charged with burglary. robbery and murder
committed in that country. There being
no extradition treaty with Belgium at that
time the surrender of the fugitive was re-
fused on the ground of interstate comfy.
After careful consideration of the subject
the Belgian minister was advised that
Vogt's surrender as an act of comfy
impossible on the ground that "the au-
thority of the executive TO abridge per-
sonal liberty within the jurisdiction of the
United States and to surrender a fugitive
from justice i'm order that he may be taken
away from their jurisdiction, is derived
from statutes of Congress, which confer
that power only in cases when the United
States bound by treaty to surrender
such fugitives, and have a reciprocal right
to claim similar surrender from another
power" In this case there was no rea-
sonable doubt of the guilt of the fugitive,
but the President declined to surrender
him on the ground that, in the absence of
a treaty and authority from Congress, he
had no constitutional right to surrender
any person charged with the commission
of crime in foreign country. This placed
the right of personal liberty on very high
ground. Such q case. however, could not
occur between the United States and any
country with which We have an extradi-
tion treaty.
The practice of extraditing criminals be-
tween different countries is of compare
lively modern origin and owes it's existence
to the fact that it was found necessary to
the punishment of crime. Occasions arise
in the history of every country when it is
desirable that fugitive criminals should be
brought to justice. The matter is too i'm
portant to be left to the personal discretion
of any ruler or to haphazard action, and
should be regulated by treaty and law.
The first treaty Of the kind negotiated by
the United States was with England in
1894 1t included only the crimes Of muir
der and forgery, and contained no stipula-
ton as to the manner in which persons
charged with either of those crimes were
to be extradited Congress did not enact
any law to carry the treaty into effect, and
it expired by limitation in 1906. From
that time till 1912 we had no extradition
treaty with Great Britain and the surren-
der of criminals by either country at the
request of the other optional. The
treaty of 1912 was unsatisfactory because a
criminal whose offenSe was not covered by
the treaty could be extradited on another
charge and then tried for his real offense.
This made trouble. In 1874 one Lawrence,
tions, fled from the United States to Eng
land The American authorities were very
anxious to get hold of him, but under the
treaty smuggling was not an extraditable
offense Lawrence was therefore charged
/ with forgery-he had forged a customhouse
bond-and on that charge he was delivered
up by the British officials. When he ar
rived i'm New York he put on trial for
smuggling. This was regarded by the
| British officials as sharp practice, and gave
rise to considerable discussion. A year or
| so later, when Z. ID. Winslow, who had
| committed a forgery in Bottom, fled to Lon
don and his surrender was requested on
that ground, the British authorities declined
| to surrender him on the ground that he
might be tried for more serious offense.
| A long diplomatic correspondence ensued,
the matter was referred to Congress, and
the treaty of 1912 was on the point of be-
| ing abrogated when the British authorities
| agreed to waive the point in the interest
| of international justice. In 1856 new treaty
with Great Britain was framed. but was
rejected by the Senate. Finally. the
| Blaine-Pauncefote treaty of 1889 was nego-
tiated and ratified. which. without any ex-
press provision on the subject is construed
by both parties as providing that fugi-
tive surrendered by either country to the
other shall only be tried on the charge for
which he was extradited.
1t has been suggested that if the decision
| of the United states commissioner shall be
| adverse to Walsh, or Lynchehaun, an ef-
| fort will be made to enlist the services or
| good offices of the government at Wash
| ington in his behalf. Such an effort would
| doubtless fail because the whole matter is
| now regulated by treaty. An appeal may
| lie from the finding OF the commissioner tc
a higher court and even TO the Supreme
| Court, but the action of the President will
be governed entirely by the decision of the
| courts The surrender by the authorities
| OF one country of person charged with
crime on the request of the authorities OF
a foreign country is an act of high SOW
ereignty For this reason extraditior
treaties are strictly construed, and in the
present case the American courts have a
right to insist that the crime with which
Walsh, or Lynchehaun is charged. was