The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-08-29

by British authorities to be James
Lynchehaun, and fugitive from Brit
ish justice, is likely to become a cell
ebrated one. Its legal. personal and
international aspects furnish all the
elements of such a case, and the manner
in which Irish-American citizens have
taken hold of it indicates that they intend
to fight the claim of the British authorities
TO the bitter end 1t is right that they
should do so as long as they have legal
ground to stand on, for the extradition of
person charged with crime, always seri-
Gus matter, becomes immeasurably more
SO when it involves his removal from one
country to another and his surrender to
authorities who are already supposed to
have prejudged his case with the greatest
severity. Yet even in such case the
courts may find the surrender Of the al
legged criminal to be an imperative duty.
The present case presents so many points of
doubt and interest that it should be fought
every inch of the way to legal conclusion.
Such a conclusion, however. should be free
from international prejudice, and IL the
British contention is found to be sustained
by law there should be an end of the mat
ter. The case will probably turn on the
construction of the extradition treaty be-
tween the United States and Great Britain
and the courts will construe it without pas
sion or prejudice. In the construction of
such treaties trouble has sometimes arisen
from the fact that different nations have
different conceptions as to what constitutes
a crime, and what constitutes a crime under
garded by the laws of another 1t is not
perceived how any trouble can arise on
that score in this case, because the crime
of assault with intent to commit murder,
which is the charge against the fugitive In
this case, is practically the same in both
] might be a request by the United States for
| the surrender of a fugitive in England,
| charged with that crime, it is for our in
terest as we'll as theirs that the treaty
! should be rightly construed and faithfully
observed. A more doubtful point is that
of the evidence on which the fugitive was
convicted. The treaty provides that the
two powers shall. upon mutual requisition,
deliver up to justice all persons charged
with the specified crimes:
Provided that this shall only be done
| upon evidence of criminality, as according
| to the laws of the place where the fugitive
| or person charged be found, would JUS
| tify his apprehension and commitment fol
| trial IL the crime or offense had there beer
committed; and the respective judges and
| other magistrates of the two governments
shall have power. jurisdiction and authority
upon complaint made under oath, to issue
| a warrant for the apprehension of the fugi
| brought before such judges or other magis
| trates respectively, to the end that the evi
dence of such criminality shall be heard
| and considered; and If, on such hearing
the evidence be deemed sufficient to sustain
| the charge, 1t shall be the duty of the ex
aiming judge or magistrate to certify th'
| same to the proper executive authority
| that warrant may issue for the surrende
| of such fugitive.
This makes the local court the judge a.
to whether the evidence sustains the charg
or not The record of conviction by a cour
of the other country is not sufficient unles
it is accompanied by rhe evidence on which
the conviction was based. The Unite,
States commissioner might not regard a
conclusive the evidence on which the Brit
ish court based its conviction. In othe
words, the alleged fugitive, before bein
surrendered, has a right to an American
decision as to whether he was proven guilt
of the crime charged. The fact that tn
British law permits a more severe penalt
for the crime charged than the America
law does would not affect the case. If tn
fugitive was guilty of the crime he must b
punished according to the laws of tn
country where it was committed. The tw
turning points in the case are those of iden
tification and evidence.