The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-09-25
An Array of Legal Talent Argues the
Case Pro and Con I'm the Fed
cra1 Court.
EXTRADITI0N LAW INVOLVED
LYNCHEHAUN IDENTIFIES HIMSELF
WHILE ON THE STAND.
The Attorneys Will Appear Before the
Court Again This Afternoon-Big
Crowd I'm Attendance.

hear the argument of the case of James
Lynchehaun. the Irish convict who escaped
from the Marlborough prison, and whom
the British government is attempting TO
extradite in order that he may serve his
life sentence in the Irish prison. The hear
ing was resumed yesterday morning in the
grand jury room. but the quarters were too
small TO accommodate the crowds that
clamored for admittance. Consequently the
afternoon session was held in the large
courtroom. and even there one-half the
people were forced TO stand.
Aside from the testimony OF James
Lynchehaun himself Immediately after the
court opened, the entire day was devoted to
the argument of the point involving the
legal effect Of the records of the Irish court.
The attorneys for the plaintiff argued that
the records are conclusive evidence of the
offense against both countries, while the
counsel for the defendant maintained that
II could only amount to prima facie evil
dence of an offense committed against Ire
land, and could only be considered as such.
Numerous cases were cited by counsel for
both sides to prove and disprove the point,
which narrowed down to the proper inter-
probation of the treaty between the two
countries made in 1872 and supplemented
in 1889. The argument concluded at
o'clock, with the announcement from the
court that the point will be further investi-
gated at 2 o'clock to-day.
IDENTIFIES HIMSELF.
When the court opened at 10 o'clock in
the morning James Lynchehaun was
placed ON the stand and for the first time
R-I he ftxn& ~ fe To
and was formerly tenant on
the estate OF Agnes Mcdonald. whom he is
charged with assaulting with intent to
kill. Then" contended Charles Fox, coun-
sci for the British government, this court
has no right to hear any further testimony
on a matter in which there has been al
ready a conviction In the British courts"
After this there followed throughout the
day one Of the most heated and eloquent
legal debates on a question of international
law that has ever been heard in Indian
apolis. In admitting the identification Of the
prisoner, the attorneys of the defendants,
Span, Winter and Harris, are concen-
trating their fight on the point that the
crime OF which Lynchehaun Is charged was
under the laws of the treaty. They are at
tempting 10 show that the crime COM
mitted in Ireland Is not sufficient under the
ton. They argued that the treaty speci-
fies that the prisoner In to be adjudged by
the laws OF the country in which he Is cap
tured.
Attorney Winter opened the argument in
the afternoon, stating that the Supreme
Court Of the United States and the Lord
Chancery Of England ruled in their judge
debt was conclusive evidence. He argued
that Lynchehaun had the right to testify
in his own behalf in order that the court
may ascertain whether he is guilty of
the crime for which he Is charged, or what
that crime is. and whether under the laws
OF Indiana it is extraditable according to
the treaty.
LIBERTY OF THE MAN.
Addison G. Harris was the next speaker
for the defendant. He maintained that the
question was one Of the liberty of a man
under the laws of the United States. He
said that they start with the fundamental
principle to take no notice of the Judgment
Of the conviction under the laws of Ireland.
and that in America there Is no law for the
arrest Of a prisoner and the sending him out
Of the country unless you can put a finger
on the law and demand Of the President of
the United States to do il. He affirmed that
there Is no International law on judgments
rendered for crime, and what law we have.
II we do have any, is not applicable TO the
case involved. The case In hand Is that of
having the prisoner RENTED to England
Tor a crime which, in the State of Indiana
is known as assault and battery, and for
which there is not sufficient punishment
liable to condemn him to a life Sentence
Since there is no international law. or until
the plaintiffs can point to the Law, there
is no extradition possible, and the crime
must be measured by the law of indiana
And, therefore. he concluded, the facts Of
In Nrrr~ h H.,
whether Ii constitutes crime in Indiana.
The contention Of the lawyers as to wheth-
er an investigation into the crime was nee
essary hinged on the Interpretation of Arti-
cles 7 and 10 OF the treaty, which provide
for the return OF refugee when record
of the trial and crime produced Couu-
sci for the plaintiff contended that the mean
ing OF the force Of the records was sufficient
evidence. such as the trainers of the treaty
had in mind while the counsel of the de-
PENDANT claimed that the trial should be
produced in detail.
ATTORNEY FOX ARGUES.
Charles Fox followed the argument of
Addison c. Harris He maintained that
the facts of conviction showed that the
crime was sufficient for the sentence. He
said he did not agree with the statement
that the prisoner should be Judged by the
laws of Indiana for the reason that the
counsel for the defendants did not charge
him with committing crime and only
when the prisoner is charged with having
committed a crime Is he judged by the laws
Of the country in which he is found He
claimed that Lynchehaun was convicted of
a crime named in the treaty and that a re-
hearing of his case had all been disposed of
The closing argument OF the afternoon
was that OF Jesse j. NJ. La Toilette. His
argument revolved around the interpreta-
ton OF the articles of the treaty which
bore on the case. He said the two sections
should be construed together and inter-
preted then as meaning that documentary
into a review OF the original crime Fur
ther. he stated. that the charge of the
English statutes relative To assault with in
tent 10 murder embodied the same mean
ing as included in the statutes of Indiana
although stated in different language. He
said that the treaty was law and recog-
niZed as such and was consequently a con-
tract between the two countries that should
be kept honorably and not be avoided by
wise than the trainers had in mind
WILL BE RESUMED TO-DAY.
The argument closed at O'Clock and the
court adjourned suntil this afternoon at .
O'Clock. when the question will be exam
ined further and Commissioner Moores will
decide whether counsel for the defendant
shall be allowed TO prove just what kind of
a crime Lynchehaun is guilty of After adj
journment Lynchehaun was the center OF
attention. His many friends and country
men pressed around him and shook his
hands. wishing him well. Those who are